Letters to
the president, address changes,
subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,
articles for the Monitor, and letters to the editor
should be sent to the National Office.

Monitor subscriptions
cost the Federation about twenty-five dollars per year.
Members are invited, and non-members are requested, to cover
the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to:

The National Federation of the Blind continues to grow in
both membership and service. In fact, it is no exaggeration to
say that the Federation is the only national organization of the
blind which is expanding in both areas. As you know, our
magazine, the Braille Monitor, (which now has a circulation of
more than 25,000 copies a month) is currently available in
Braille, in print, and on talking book record. Beginning
immediately, we are also making the Monitor available on
cassette. It is being recorded on four tracks at the slow speed.

If you or anyone you know would like to have the Monitor on
cassette, write to: Braille Monitor, National Federation of the
Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. In your
letter tell us whether you are now receiving the Monitor; if so,
in what form; and whether you would like to continue receiving it
in that form as well as on cassette.

Although we want to provide the Monitor to anyone who wants
to read it, and in whatever form it is wanted, we should add that
the cassette edition is quite a bit more costly than the disk
edition. If you can use the disk edition as conveniently as the
cassette edition, it will conserve money and allow us to allocate
resources to other important programs. In any case the Monitor
is now available on cassette, and we believe this will expand the
readership and provide a needed service.

THE KEVAN WORLEY CASE:
A LESSON IN CIVIL RIGHTS

by Peggy Pinder

(Editor's Comments: In the middle part of the nineteenth
century, America was torn by the question of slavery. At that
time James Russell Lowell said:

Truth forever on the scafferd;
Wrong forever on the throne.
Yet, that scafferd sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadows,
Keeping watch above his own.

On another occasion Lowell said:

They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three.

The kind of slavery which Lowell protested no longer exists
in America, but that does not mean that oppression has been
eliminated or slavery completely abolished. As you read the
following article, ask yourself what you would have done if you
had stood in Kevan Worley's place in the line at the bus station.

How would you have felt as your small children, your wife, and
the crowd of bystanders witnessed your humiliation? What scars
will be left on the nine-year-old son and the two-year-old
daughter?

Ordinarily the Monitor does not make a practice of printing
offensive language, but we make an exception in the present
instance. The blind of the nation and their friends must know
what was said by the police. It is no game we play, this
business of self-organization and struggle for equal treatment.
It is as vital and important as the lives and destinies of us
all, and those who fear the consequences of the struggle for
freedom should consider carefully and quietly drop out of line.
There is a price to be paid, and the time of payment is now.
There is also a reward to be achieved. Its name is freedom, and
we do not intend for it to be postponed until future generations.

We intend to have some of it now--some for ourselves, and even
more for the blind who come after us. However, we can only have
it if we are prepared to work for it, sacrifice for it, and fight
for it. Freedom is like that. It is never given. It must
always be earned.

With this in mind what are you prepared to do on a daily
basis as you interact with family, friends, acquaintances, and
strangers? And what are you prepared to do to build and
strengthen the National Federation of the Blind? Individual
action and collective action--both are required. In short, you
and the Federation. Each of us should think of these things and
ponder our own level of commitment as we contemplate the Kevan
Worley story. Here it is in the words of Peggy Pinder, who
served as attorney for the Worleys.)

What happens in the United States if an individual stands up
and asserts rights guaranteed by law? Our textbooks and our
traditions tell us that law protects us, that human and civil
rights lie at the very core of our nation's jurisprudence. But
human and civil rights are the end result. Someone had first to
stand up for those rights and often had to suffer for doing so.

A
glance at American legal history reveals many victims, men and women whose
rights were trampled upon and who never
personally achieved redress in court. The great case of Marbury
v. Madison established the Supreme Court as the final decider of
what is and is not permitted under our Constitution. As a
footnote to history, William Marbury, who originally brought the
suit, lost completely. The slave plaintiff Dred Scott lost his
case to compel his freedom, a defeat which helped to bring about
the Civil War. Homer Plessy lost his case for equal treatment of
blacks and whites by railroad companies, ushering in the legal
permission to segregate people by race known as "separate but
equal" treatment. Japanese-American internee Toyosubaro
Korematsu lost his case to have the World War II internment of
Japanese- Americans declared unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court's permission for imprisonment based on race in Korematsu
provoked the Federation's founder Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, then a
university professor and legal scholar, to write a learned
protest which earned him a permanent place in American legal
tradition. Dr. tenBroek's analysis is the starting point of
every first-year law student's study of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, and his insights and language
are used routinely by today's lawyers.

History has slowly righted the wrongs inflicted in these
individual cases. But many of the individuals who first asserted
important civil rights did not live to enjoy those rights
themselves.

The suffering of these men and women did not begin with
their final defeat in court. When a human or civil right is
violated, the pain and humiliation are immediate and last a
lifetime. When one human being treats another as an inferior, as
second-class, as subhuman, both human beings are degraded. The
one who receives the injury must be strong indeed to prevent it
from warping and embittering the outlook.

We blind people are accustomed to dealing with people who
believe us less capable than our neighbors. The National
Federation of the Blind serves as our vehicle for righting these
wrongs and for bringing about a better world in which the blind
will be accepted as equals. The Federation also serves each of
us as a source of strength, helping us to keep perspective and
teaching us that bitterness and resentment will not change the
world. Only a strong belief in ourselves and a willingness to
work for creative change will bring the results we seek.

There
is a long list of Federationists who have led the way in suffering arrest
and public harassment because they stood up
for their rights. Judy Sanders, Russell Anderson, Steve and
Nadine Jacobson, Gary Mackenstadt, Barbara Pierce, Larry Krejci,
Sharon Gold, Sheryl Pickering, David Estes, Kevin Harris, and
Fred Schroeder have all been arrested in the last two years for
sitting in their assigned airline seats, seats which turned out
to be in exit rows. Only Steve and Nadine Jacobson were ever
tried in a court of law. As for all the others, they were never
even charged, or the charges were dropped by local prosecutors or
judges who knew that the blind person had committed no crime.
The Jacobsons told their story to a jury as did United Airlines.
The Jacobsons won, receiving a complete acquittal from the jury.
Other Federationists--President Maurer, Mary Ellen Reihing,
Bonnie O'Day, Paul Gabias, Curtis Chong, Jan Uribes, Steve
Hastalis --have been physically removed or barred from airplanes
or have been falsely told that their flight was "canceled," though
the airlines did not have the courage to arrest these men and women. They were
simply refused passage when they insisted
on sitting in their exit row seats--seats assigned to them (not
by their request) by the airlines.

Each of these men and women underwent the pain and
humiliation of public harassment when they stood up for their
rights. Each was finally vindicated by the courts as completely
as by their own consciences. Each has learned the lesson of
Federationism in a new way. But even if a court had found each
and every one of them guilty of some criminal charge, every one
of them would still stand acquitted before their own beliefs.
Each of them chose their beliefs over immediate comfort, their
beliefs over the wishes of those around them, their beliefs over
the usual practice of complying with directives of those in
charge. Each is stronger, and we are all stronger for it.

Each is stronger because he or she learned that, when you
seem most to be alone, when the people all around you seem to be
united against you, that is when you feel most strongly the
supporting force of 50,000 other blind people encouraging you to
endure for principle and belief. The journey from second- class
citizenship to first-class status is never easy, but it is always
worth the effort and exceedingly rewarding. In fact, it is
likely to be more painful than anything else except staying where
you are as a second-class citizen.

Kevan and Debbie Worley are Federationists from St. Louis
where Kevan serves as a chapter president. Both are blind.
Neither had ever been arrested for insisting on equal treatment
before September 4, l986. They had always been there when
someone else needed encouragement and support. They knew that
their rights in Missouri were protected by a White Cane Law
making violation of the civil rights of a blind person a crime,
and they had a friend whose recent illness called them to make an
eighty-mile bus trip to cheer and encourage the long hours of
convalescence.

On September 4, l986, Kevan and Debbie Worley, both carrying
their white canes, arrived at the Trailways bus station in St.
Louis at about 7:00 a.m. with their son and daughter. The
Worleys got in line while their son went to play video games.
When they arrived at the ticket counter, they stepped into that
twilight world where a person's simple dignity and humanity must
be fought for before the judge of conscience and belief. Here in
their own words is what happened:

--------------------

Affidavit of Kevan Worley

Comes now Kevan Worley and, being first duly sworn, deposes
and states as follows:

2. On Thursday morning, September 4, 1986, my wife Deborah
and I and our two children, Jayson, age nine, and Megan Beth, age
two, took a cab from our home to the Trailways Bus station in
downtown St. Louis. We left our home at approximately 6:50
Thursday morning, arriving at the bus station a little after
7:00. Our son Jayson went to play video games, while Megan,
Deborah, and I got in line to buy tickets. We were going to
visit friends in Festus, Missouri, some forty miles south of St.
Louis.

3. When it came our turn to purchase tickets,
Deborah
asked the female ticket agent for two adult and one child's
ticket to Festus. The ticket agent asked to see a doctor's
letter. Deborah said we did not need a letter from a doctor
since we weren't asking for any half price fares, except for a
child's ticket which is always half fare. The lady asked again
for a doctor's letter and Deborah said, "I don't understand.
We've never used a doctor's letter before, and anyway we want
full fare tickets for my husband and me and the full fare charged
for our children."

4. The ticket agent got
very loud and once again told Deborah that she would not be allowed to buy
tickets without a
doctor's letter. At this point Deborah asked to see a supervisor
and was told that the supervisor would, "not be in until nine and
by that time your bus will be gone."

5. At this point I decided that the ticket agent must be
confused about my white cane and the fact that Deborah had asked
for a half fare ticket for our son. I explained that my wife and
I wanted full fare tickets and that the half fare ticket we
wanted was for our nine-year-old son. I explained that we didn't
want any special treatment or reductions in fare because of
blindness, just the ordinary tickets for adults and for children.

The ticket agent angrily replied that she wasn't going to sell
us tickets. I then said, "You've been rude to everyone in this
line. We've heard you. Please just sell us the tickets. We do
not want special treatment from you and we have a right under the
law to buy regular tickets. All we want to do is go to Festus."
The agent said, "I cannot sell you any Godamn tickets without a
doctor's statement."

6. At that time I told
the ticket agent that we would not move until she sold us tickets. She said, "I won't sell you any
fucking tickets so get out of my line." She then moved to the
next ticket window to my right. I picked up my cane, moved to my
right, and attempted to bar that window with the cane by holding
it horizontally across my body, five to six inches out away from
my chest along the edge of the counter. My right hand extended
down to the tip of the cane and my left hand was placed on the
handle of the cane. At no time did my cane leave our side of the
window or rise higher than the level of the countertop. My
attempt was to bar the window as a sign of defiance and I said,
"We won't be leaving if we're not allowed to buy tickets and go
to Festus, and neither will anybody else." As I moved to my
right, I accidentally brushed against an older lady. Deborah put
her arm around me and said, "it's an older lady." At that time,
the older lady moved around behind me to the ticket window
located to my left where we had orignally been standing. The
agent went back to that ticket window and they began to transact
business.

7. Realizing that I could accomplish
nothing by preventing others from buying tickets, I then moved farther down
the counter
to my right. As I did, I accidentally knocked over some object
sitting on the counter. It sounded like one of those hard molded
plastic cases that they put on the counter to display schedules
or credit card applications. The ticket agent then called the
police and said, "Somebody's bustin' up my station."

8.
I continued every twenty to thirty seconds to say, "I
would like for my family and me to be sold tickets to Festus.
Please sell us tickets. Will someone from Trailways please sell
our family tickets to Festus. Look, all I want are tickets to
Festus." Those kinds of things I was saying every time I heard
someone walking up to the counter to buy tickets.

9.
While I was doing this, I asked Deborah to go call the police. Our rights
under the Missouri White Cane law were being
violated, and I felt that we should call for police assistance.
Deborah went to call while I continued saying, "Please sell us
tickets to Festus" for another five to seven minutes.

10.
As Deborah returned to my side with Megan in her arms crying, police came
up from behind us and asked Deborah, "Is this
the asshole busting up Trailways? Why in the hell does he want
to go to Festus?" Deborah said, "I don't know. You'll have to
ask him." They spun me around and the older sounding officer
said, "What the hell are you doing here? Why don't you get out
of here? This isn't a play." The younger-sounding one (I learned
later his name is Steve) said, "Where are you from? I know you
can't be from St. Louis. You're too fucking stupid." I had been
holding forty dollars in my hand the entire time. I held the two
twenty-dollar bills out to the officers and said, "I want to go
to Festus. That's all we want to do is go to Festus. You can
resolve this by talking to the agent. Would you please buy the
tickets for us? All we want to do is go to Festus." One of the
officers said, "You're not going anywhere. Just get the fuck out
of here." I said, "I'm sorry. I cannot leave if my family does
not get bus tickets to Festus."

11. The next
thing I remember is officer Steve telling me, "We'll take you in for resisting arrest." At this time Deobrah
said, "Are you arresting him? Is he under arrest? You can't do
that. You haven't told him he's under arrest." "The fuck we
can't. We can do anything we want. We're St. Louis police
officers," Steve said. Deborah asked, "Don't you have to read
his rights or anything?" "We don't have to read him shit," one of
the officers replied. At this point, they wrenched the cane from
my hands while Deborah protested by saying, "You can't do that.
You can't take his cane away." One of the officers said, "The
hell we can't" as I was spun around and handcuffed.

12.
They started taking me to the door, and Deborah asked if she could have the
money in my front left pocket if they were
taking me in. One officer yelled, "No you can't" and the other
one said she could. All I knew at the time was that someone did
reach in my front left pocket and take the hundred-dollar bill.
(I later learned that Deborah had moved quickly to my side and
taken the bill before anyone tried to stop her.)

13.
The two officers then marched me out to the street in handcuffs. As they
did, one of them said, "We'll take you down
with the niggers and see how your asshole likes that." The one
officer, Steve, was on my right. He moved very fast, while the
other officer on my left walked very slowly and started bending
my elbow up at a peculiar angle. This put me in an awkward and
painful position. By the time we reached the street, my elbow
had been bent up high enough that, combined with the different
paces of the officers, I was suffering considerable pain. I had
to try somehow to get my elbow down a little to ease the
pressure.

14. It was at this point that one officer
said, "Oh, you
want to struggle, huh, you mother fucker?" and threw me to the
ground. The other officer said, "Oh, he wants to fuckin'
struggle, huh?" When I fell, I landed on my right side. Steve
walked around me, prodding me with his shoes. I turned on to my
stomach to protect my face. Immediately the older sounding
officer called for an ambulance while Steve waived a billy club
over my head. I could feel the air and hear the whistling sound
of the club being waved over my head as Steve cursed me and
threatened me. He said, "Do you still want those fucking
Trailways tickets to Festus? Why don't you beg for them and I'll
split your fucking brains all over the sidewalk."

15.
At this time I was very panicked and felt I should do anything they said
because I was feeling very threatened. I
started saying, "I'm sorry, man. Let's forget it, man." Steve
said, "Man? I'm not 'man.' I'm a fucking St. Louis police
officer." He then said something about showing him respect.

16. The officers then told me to get up. I tried to get up
and found that the handcuffs made it difficult to get my balance. I fell back slightly, so they both jerked me to my feet and
shoved me into the back of a car. Steve got into the front seat
of the car while continuing to curse me by saying, "What in the
fuck do you think you're doing, you stupid, blind-assed mother
fucker." He continued to berate me with real anger and outrage.
I could hear real violence in his voice. I was terrified and
said nothing.

17. At this point I heard my wife approaching the car and
asking if she could have the house keys. One of the officers
relayed the message from Deborah to Steve in the front seat.
Steve reached back and attempted to get in my right pocket. He
was unsuccessful in getting the keys, so he got out of the car
and said, "I'm not going to strip search the son of a bitch out
here. I'm just not going to do it. You don't need the fucking
keys." Deborah said, "Where will you be taking him?" Steve
replied, "We'll be taking him to the Twelfth and Clark police
station."

18. By this time there was at least
one more officer (a third one) on the scene--a police sergeant, I believe.
I heard
one of the officers talk to a passer-by. The officer said
something about a civil matter and that this was a criminal
matter and the passer-by should "get the hell out of here." I
presume that this passer-by was offering information which would
help us.

19. The police officers then laughed at
Deborah, who was attempting to get into a cab. They said, "Look at the bitch now. She's trying to take those kids home without her cane. Where the
hell is her cane? Why don't we arrest them both, throw them into
a cell and see how blind people fuck?" They all got a good laugh
out of this.

20. "They'll probably win a civil action and get about half
a million dollars," one of the officers said. "Why don't we just
put a gun to his head right now and ask for $10,000 in advance." Again they
all laughed heartily.

21. At this point, I heard
another vehicle drive up. They told me to get out of the car and asked me
if I wanted to go to
the hospital. I said, "That will be up to these gentlemen." They
said, "Look, you either want to go to the hospital or you don't."
I said, "I don't know what you want me to do. I'll do whatever
it is you want to speed this thing up. I don't know what you
want me to do." The woman and man (they were new arrivals) asked
me if I wanted to go to the hospital. I said I didn't know.
They asked if I had any bruises or scratches and I said I had
some elbow scrapes, but I didn't know if they needed hospital
treatment. They turned me around slowly and said they didn't
think I'd be treated. I said I'd do whatever the officers wanted
me to do. At that time they exchanged information. I heard
papers shuffling. I was put back in the car where I sat by
myself for three to five minutes. I was then led out of the car
into a paddy wagon and taken to the police station.

22.
I was taken from the paddy wagon by one officer and led into the police station.
On the way in, the other officer was
banging my cane on the ground repeatedly and quite hard. One
officer said, "Does that damned thing have some kind of sensor?"
The officer with the cane banged it harder, and I heard the ring
from the tip slide up the cane. He said, "It sure the fuck
doesn't now," and they both laughed about that.

23.
Once inside the police station I was with Steve alone. He took me to different
desks. He didn't seem to know what was
going on. He was asking people, "Where do I take him? Where do
you want him?" He seemed to be confused about where to process
me. I was finally taken upstairs. It took almost half an hour
to fill out forms listing my property and getting information
such as my name and address, etc. He asked me to take everything
out of my pockets and asked me to count my money. I counted it
and said, "I believe there's about $5.80 there." He said he would
count it and said, "There's $6.10. The stupid blind fucker can't
even count." The two officers then debated for a while what to
charge me with. They didn't seem sure about this, and they
finally decided to say that I had assaulted each officer,
disturbed the peace, and resisted arrest. When they had
mentioned all these charges, they talked them over, and each one
agreed that I had done all those things.

24. I
was then escorted by two other men to a cell after waiting for a while for
a woman to get sheets to put on a bed.
They talked about priding themselves on having special
accommodations and said they couldn't put me with others in the
jail. I said I didn't need sheets and that I'd just sit on the
bed. They again said they were able to deal with people "in your
condition." I was then locked in a cell for an hour and a half.
I was offered a honey bun which I did not accept. I was taken to
pre-trial, where I talked with a man named Mr. Webber. He said,
"You've got a business at the Municipal Court Building, don't
you?" I said, "Yes sir." Mr. Webber told me what my charges would
be and said a lawyer had already contacted them. I asked which
lawyer, and he said he didn't know, but that I should be out
shortly. I was then taken back to my cell for a time. Then a
man who works for the Muncipal Court came and apologized for my
being in there so long. He said he recognized me from our
business. He said, "I'd have been back here sooner, but I've
been so busy with all these real criminals. You will be released
on your own recognizance without having to put up any money." He
gave me something to sign, which I did. I waited for probably
another hour at which time I was taken to the finger- print man
named Stephen. He did many fingerprints on me, taking thirty or
forty minutes. Mug shots were also taken of me. I was then
escorted by another policeman on an elevator downstairs where I
was given my summons as well as my personal property. I next
went out to the lobby where I met my wife and my friend, Mr. Mark
Harris. This was at approximately 2:00 in the afternoon.

25. I later discovered that the jail officials had not
returned my wedding ring, a simple gold band, when they returned
my other property to me.

Kevan Worley
St. Louis, Missouri

This 8th day of September,
1986, KEVAN WORLEY personally appeared before me.

Barbara A. Spoon, Notary Public

--------------------

Affidavit of Deborah Worley

Comes now Deborah Worley and, being first duly sworn,
deposes and states as follows:

1. My name is Deborah Worley. My address is 5432 Odell
Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63139. My husband is Kevan Worley.
Both of us are blind.

2. On Thursday morning, September 4, 1986, I accompanied
my husband Kevan and my two children, Jayson and Megan, to the
Trailways bus station. We were on our way to visit some friends
in Festus, Missouri. Kevan and I had our long white canes with
us as we always do. We arrived at the bus station at a little
after 7:00 in the morning. We went to the ticket counter and
waited in line.

3. When we made it to the front of the line, I approached
the ticket agent, a woman, and told her that I wanted to purchase
a half-fare ticket for a child and two round trip adult tickets.
We did not need a ticket for our daughter since she is two and
would ride on one of our laps. The agent told me that I needed a
doctor's statement in order to do this, and I said we did not.
The agent said that in order to travel with the handicapped fare
one had to have a doctor's report. I said I did not want to
purchase a handicapped ticket and that I wanted to purchase
full-fare tickets for my husband and me, and a half-fare child's
ticket for my nine-year-old. I asked to see a supervisor and
was told her supervisor was not there and would not be in until
nine o'clock. She said that would be too late for our bus.

4. At this time Kevan tried to explain to her that we were
not asking for special treatment. She still refused to sell us
the tickets. Kevan then told her that she would sell us the
tickets. The agent again refused. Kevan and the agent continued
to disagree and the agent became louder and louder as well as
beginning to swear. She was abusive to Kevan. At this point
Kevan moved down the counter to the right. The agent called the
police.

5. Kevan told me to call the police. I went to the pay
phone and called 911. I told the person who answered that I
needed an officer sent to the Trailways bus station. I gave her
my name and described the situation. She said there was an
officer on the scene. I said there was not an officer in the
station, and she insisted there was. I explained that we were
blind and that Trailways was refusing to sell us tickets, which
is a violation of Missouri law. She told me that Trailways did
not have to sell us a ticket if they didn't want to do so. I
asked if she was refusing to send an officer and she replied that
she could not send an officer without an address. I said we were
at the Trailways station downtown and that certainly any officer
would know its location. I was told she would need a street
address. I finally came up with the address and she said she
would send an officer.

6. At this time I returned
to Kevan. My son joined us, and my daughter was crying because she became
frightened with
everyone starting to yell. Soon two police officers arrived.
One of them asked me if this was "the asshole tearing up the
station" and "what does he think he's doing here?" I said, "I
don't know. You'll have to talk to him." They began talking to
Kevan, asking him what he thought he was doing there. Kevan
explained what we had tried to do, showed them the money in his
hand. He even asked if the officer would purchase the tickets
and resolve the situation. He explained that all we wanted to do
was to go on our trip.

7. The officer told Kevan that we had to leave, and we
refused to do so because we thought that Missouri law protected
our right to be treated like everyone else.

8.
The officer said he was going to arrest Kevan for resisting arrest. I said, "Does this mean he is under arrest?
Are you arresting him?" The officer said he could do anything he
wanted to do. His language was very foul. The officer very
quickly grabbed Kevan and pulled Kevan's arms behind his back.
Kevan's cane was grabbed from his hand, and I reached for the
cane, saying, "You can't take that! What are you doing?" An
officer slapped hand-cuffs on Kevan very roughly and said, "I
can do any fucking thing I want to do." I again asked if Kevan
was under arrest and said, "You have to tell him what his rights
are." He said, "I don't have to do a fucking thing."

9.
The officer also said, "I'll arrest you, too." At that
time I took a step or so backwards because my children were with
me.

10. They hurried Kevan outside. I got my children
as quickly as I could out to the front of the station. By the time
I got there, the officers had Kevan on the ground. He was lying
face down on the sidewalk. I ran over and said, " What are you
doing to him?" One of the officers was circling Kevan. I believe
it was officer Steve Holt, and he was yelling at Kevan about
having to respect him because he was an officer of the law. He
was again using foul language and I said, "What are you doing?" He
told me to get the fuck away from him. I backed up again because he seemed to
be violent, and I felt that any minute he
very well might strike me or Kevan or possibly my children. He
held a club as he circled Kevan. He was screaming just like a
person who didn't know what he was doing. There was no logic to
the things he was saying.

11. I went into the station at this time, trying to think
of what to do. I left my son standing there but carried my
daughter with me. I knew I had to call for help from somebody.
I attempted to call Mark Harris, and in being frightened I first
dialed my home number.

12. I went back outside.
At this time Kevan was in the police car. I again attempted to talk to the
officer. I asked
where Kevan was being taken and he told me to the Clark Street
station. I said, "So, is he under arrest?" I asked if I could
get our house keys from Kevan. At this time the officer became
angry and again threatened me with arrest. I asked Kevan if he
was okay, and the officer started to move from the car. He
picked up his club again and told me to, "Shut the fuck up; I'm
tired of messing with you. Keep it up and I'll arrest you too." At that
time, Kevan yelled from the back seat instructing me to
call Mr. Maurer.

13. Another police car pulled up along with a police van.
I approached one of the new officers, asking if I could get
Kevan's house key. They refused to let me do this. I was again
threatened with arrest by Officer Holt.

14. At this time I was able to get a Laclede cab and I took
my children home. My son climbed through a window in the house
because we did not have a key. I then contacted Mr. Maurer of
the National Federation of the Blind.

Deborah Worley

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 8th day of September,
1986.

Ardith I. Hammond, Notary Public

--------------------

Despite the Worleys' belief, Missouri law did not protect
their rights at the Trailways bus station. The National
Federation of the Blind immediately swung into action. The next
day, Federationists from Missouri and three other states--more
than fifty blind people with less than twenty-four hours'
notice--converged on the St. Louis bus station to picket
Trailways and to protest the treatment of the Worleys.

Television, radio, and newspaper reports of these incredible
events spread throughout the St. Louis area. The common reaction
throughout St. Louis was outrage that such a thing could occur.

The
public responded in person as well. Many people came into Debbie Worley's
vending location in the Municipal Building
(across from the court building) to express their support and
came back again and again as customers. Debbie's business has
benefited, despite the threats of the police who arrested Kevan
that "We'll see how her business does now."

The
day after Kevan was arrested, a Trailways spokesperson further fanned the
flames of resentment against his company by
defending its refusal to sell tickets to blind persons. As he
put it, " We don't hire drivers to take the blind to the
bathroom."

The police remained firm through this barrage of bad
publicity. They insisted that Kevan had kicked each officer,
thus committing two assaults. They insisted that it was Kevan
who had disturbed the peace of the bus station. And they
insisted that Kevan had resisted arrest. They insisted that
charges be filed.

The two assault charges were immediately refused. The state
prosecutor obviously didn't believe the police officers' story
that they were brutalized by a handcuffed blind man. No
prosecution there. But the city prosecutor backed the police.
After all, they are another arm of the same city government he
serves. City charges of disturbing the peace and resisting
arrest were filed against Kevan Worley, and the trial was
scheduled for January 5, 1987.

Painful though it
was, the Worleys hoped that this would provide an opportunity to tell their
story in court. They had
tried twice (once in the bus station and once afterwards) to file
charges against the ticket agent for violating their rights under
the Missouri White Cane Law. Nobody would touch the case. The
subject had gotten too hot to handle. Their nine-year-old son, a
thoughtful and observant child, refused to talk with them about
the incident, retreating into hurt silence. Their two-year-old
daughter started playing a game she had never played before. She
would run up behind someone, grasp both wrists, and say, sternly
and unsmilingly, "I'm police." The police department refused the
Worleys' complaint against the two officers, denying that any
wrong had been done and denying that the wedding band had been
taken. The courtroom was the only place left.

Court opened at 1:00 p.m. Monday, January 5, 1987. The
Worleys waited with their son in the courtroom until nearly 4:00
p.m. while the presiding judge, the Honorable Michael Riley,
handled other cases--accepting guilty pleas and conducting three
other trials scheduled before the Worleys'. At about 4:00 p.m.,
the case of the City of St. Louis v. James Kevan Worley was
called for trial.

Anyone who has ever been involved in circumstances requiring
a blind person to stand up for his or her rights knows just what
happened next. When we assert ourselves, insist on equal
treatment, maintain that we are full and equal members of
society, many of the people around us are so astonished and upset
by the thought that they magnify and expand everything the blind
person does a hundredfold. Fellow passengers shout, swear at,
and physically threaten the blind person sitting peaceably in an
airline seat and later describe the blind person's demeanor as
loud, rude, and abusive. Potential employers become angry and
resentful when pressed to treat a blind applicant fairly and
recall the articulate blind applicant's behavior as inappropriate
and rude. The health club owner, the roller rink manager, the
horse stable master are all likely to excuse their discriminatory
behavior by insisting that the blind person did something wrong.
This is all part of the pattern, part of what people moving from
second-class status to first-class citizenship must face. It is
what Kevan Worley knew he was about to face as his trial began.
It is why the Federation, with all its support and encouragement,
means so much to Kevan and to all blind people.

The City of St. Louis produced three witnesses to show that
Kevan had disturbed the peace and resisted arrest. The three
were excluded from the courtroom except when they were testifying
so that they could not hear the testimony of the other two.
While in the hallway waiting to testify, excluded witnesses are
not allowed to speak to one another about the case. Even in this
exclusion, the witnesses against Kevan could not bring themselves
to deal fairly with a blind person. While the second witness was
testifying, the first and third were comparing their testimony
out in the hall. This showed great disrespect for Kevan and the
case involving him. But it also showed great disrespect for the
judge. When he found out, the judge almost jumped off his bench
while the city prosecutor started dropping all his books and
papers as he sought to excuse himself from this violation of the
court's order that witnesses were to be separated. When the
third witness came into court, he coolly told the judge under
oath that he had not been discussing the case in the hall, just
the other witness's grandchildren.

The testimony
of the three witnesses against Kevan was like testimony of three entirely
different incidents. The first
witness, Pauline McCelleary (pronounced like the vegetable) was
the ticket agent on September 4, l986. She insisted under close
questioning that Kevan had asked for a half fare ticket and that
he had refused to provide the necessary documentation. She said
that Debbie never spoke to her and did not have a white cane.
She said that Kevan "hollered and screamed" at Debbie while he
was being handcuffed, then "hollered and screamed" at the police
as they led him out. She said that Kevan kicked each police
officer in the leg while the three were still inside the bus
station. She said that Kevan struggled as he was being led out
and kicked over an ash can. She said that Kevan held his cane by
its handle and, two separate times, leaned over the ticket
counter, waving the cane in her direction in an effort to strike
her with its end. She said he missed her both times.

After
these interesting statements were made under oath, the first police officer
came to the stand. His name is Steve Holt
and he is identified in Kevan's narration as "the younger
officer." As he was testifying, McCelleary and the other police
officer were comparing notes outside. Officer Holt stated that
he was never kicked inside the bus station. He stated that Kevan
did not struggle or shout as he was led outside. He stated that
Kevan did not kick over an ash can on his way out of the bus
station. He said that anybody who said so would be mistaken.
Officer Holt stated that he was kicked by Kevan after they got
outside of the bus station. He stated that, after being kicked,
he and his partner "gently placed" Kevan on the sidewalk and that
he then knelt by Kevan until Kevan "regained his composure." He
said this took place right outside the station door, sixteen to
twenty feet from the police car. He denied using any foul
language, any threats, or any filthy sexual suggestions. He also
said that, when he and his partner first approached Kevan, they
both carefully gave their names and their titles as police
officers. He stated that each officer then permitted Kevan to
feel their badges to satisfy himself that the two were really
officers.

Officer Holt repeatedly insisted that
Kevan had "resisted
the officers" while everyone was still standing at the bus
counter. He described this resistance as "tensing up" when an
officer first placed a hand on Kevan's arm. He stated that, as
soon as Kevan was told he was under arrest, he submitted to being
handcuffed without protest. He continued to refer to this as
"resisting" throughout his testimony. He also recalled, under
questioning, Kevan's holding money in his hand and asking the
officers simply to buy the tickets and resolve the matter easily
that way.

When this officer was finished, the other officer, named
William Bereitshaft (pronounced BRRR-RIGHT-shaft) took the stand.

He said that he had not been kicked inside the bus station,
that
Kevan had not struggled or hollered when being led from the
station, that Kevan did not kick over an ash can on his way out,
and that Kevan had not physically resisted the officers in any
way at the ticket counter. He said that anyone who said so would
be mistaken. He also claimed that he was kicked by Kevan outside
the station, though he insisted that he was kicked two to three
feet away from the police car and twenty feet or so away from the
station door. He testified that Kevan tried to break away from
the officers, though Kevan had his hands cuffed behind his back
and had no cane. The officer said he didn't know why Kevan was
trying to break away, but that he was. He also stated that Kevan
was "gently placed" on the sidewalk to "give him time to compose
himself," though he insisted that he, not Officer Holt, was the
one who knelt by Kevan until calm returned. He also denied using
any foul language and maintained that Kevan had been told their
names and felt their badges before any conversation occurred.

Both officers insisted that they had read Kevan's rights to
him. Both officers insisted that Kevan had been trying to buy a
half-fare ticket without proper documentation. Both officers
vigorously denied that either of them had threatened anyone with
a billy club. Officer Holt even denied that he had his billy
club with him, but officer Breitschaft clearly recalled that both
officers had had their billy clubs at all times.

Kevan and Debbie both testified in accordance with their
affidavits and both added that no constitutional rights were ever
read to Kevan and no feeling of policemen's chests had been
invited by the officers or done by Kevan. Kevan told the judge
that he wouldn't even know where to feel to find a badge.

By this time, it was nearly 7:00 p.m. and the judge informed
the courtroom that he had heard enough. He dismissed both
charges against Kevan and the case was over.

Nine-year-old Jayson had come to court with his parents and
had sat quietly all afternoon waiting to testify. When witnesses
were excluded, he went into the hall with the rest. He was
scheduled to be the last witness and was still in the hall
(though the court marshal was with him because both his parents
were in the courtroom) when the judge began to rule. The judge
stated that he did not need Jayson's testimony and sent someone
to bring Jayson back inside. Jayson marched in, marched right up
the aisle, opened the gate, and was nearly up to the witness
chair before anyone realized that the youngster didn't know that
his father had already been cleared of the charges. Jayson was
finally ready to talk, was eager to talk. It was a proud day for
the son when his father was finally declared innocent by a formal
court of law.

After the case was over, people who had been in the hallway
during the trial began comparing notes with the people who had
been in the courtroom. They discovered that Officer Bereitschaft
who had sworn an oath to tell the whole truth, had then told only
a small corner of it. After Pauline McCelleary testified, she
came out into the hallway and discussed her testimony and the
entire incident at length with Officer Bereitschaft as he waited
to go inside. As she left, she mentioned that she was going to
see her grandchildren. Officer Bereitschaft quite calmly told
the judge that he had not discussed the case with McCelleary at
all. The rest of his testimony was equally truthful.

McCelleary also spent some time in the hall complaining to
the officer. She said that she had had previous complaints about
her ticket selling, but that she had continued in that assignment
until the day the Worleys appeared. After their incident, she
had been removed from ticket selling. She resented this demotion
and blamed the Worleys for it. This undoubtedly had a great deal
to do with her truthfulness under oath.

The courage and good spirits shown by Kevan, Debbie, and
Jayson Worley is the same courage and spirit shown by the other
Federationists who have been arrested and publicly humiliated
during the last two years. It is a courage based on the absolute
certainty that they were right in the stand they took. It is a
courage based on the absolute certainty that their brothers and
sisters in the Federation would stand with them.

Kevan and Debbie are stronger because they stood up for
their rights. The Federation is stronger. We are all one step
nearer to that equality of treatment we seek because of what
happened in the St. Louis bus station and the St. Louis
courtroom.

Every Federationist who has stood up
for equal treatment and been arrested for it has been declared innocent by
the courts of
this country. But, even if every one of them had been found
guilty, they would still stand acquitted before the court of
their own consciences. Each of these Federationists has given a
deeper meaning to the words spoken so prophetically by Dr.
Jernigan in his 1973 banquet speech "Blindness: Is History
Against Us?": "Whatever the cost, we shall pay it. Whatever the
sacrifice, we shall make it. We cannot turn back, or stand
still. Instead, we must go forward. We shall prevail--and
history will record it. The future is ours."

Through the Federation, we seek a world where equal
treatment of blind persons is ordinary and commonplace. We
haven't reached that yet, and much work remains to be done. It
is certain that other Federationists will be called upon to stand
up for their rights, to suffer humiliation and even arrest for
their beliefs. Those who have already suffered have added much
to our momentum toward freedom. Others will come along to
increase the momentum even more. It is part of what we seek and
believe in. It is part of our pledge to Dr. tenBroek and to Dr.
Jernigan and to President Maurer. We will not falter. We will
not turn back. With our brothers and sisters in the Federation,
we shall prevail.

WELCOME TO ARIZONA

Note: This article is comprised of excerpts from an
exclusive interview with two of our outstanding Federationists in
Arizona, Bernard C. Remington, III and The Cactus Kid, regarding
the upcoming national convention in Phoenix. Remember that
requests for reservations should be sent (as soon as possible)
to: Convention Reservations, National Federation of the Blind,
1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Convention dates
are June 27 through July 4, 1987.

Bernard: On behalf of the Arizona affiliate of the National
Federation of the Blind, let me say that we are honored to host
the 1987 national convention in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. The
downtown Hyatt Regency hotel, our convention headquarters, is
among the classiest and most elegant hotels we have ever had the
good fortune to procure. Additionally, the Phoenix Convention
Center, located across the plaza from the hotel, is now over
twice as large and even more posh than it was for our 1984
convention.

Cactus Kid: But da garn, don't ya'll fret none just cuz'n
Phoenix is all growed up and purty now as the ninth largest city
in the US of A, fulla all sorts of culture and class calculated
to please the slickest and refinest city dudes. Heck no, this is
Arizona's diamond jubilee birthday. She's 75 years old and we're
puttin' on a down home country fandango that'll make even the
city folks' eyes light up like a tumbleweed in a brush fire.

Bernard: Fellow Federationists, you may recall that the
first eight floors of the Phoenix Hyatt Regency Hotel have open
interior balconies which overlook the luxurious lounge and
Terrace restaurant. It also has exterior glass-walled elevators
that enable one to enjoy the sights of the city while riding
skyward to one's room. Additionally, atop this high class
highrise Hyatt is the revolving Compass Restaurant where, while
dining on exquisite cuisine, one can partake of all three hundred
sixty degrees of Arizona's panoramic vista, which includes such
breathtaking wonders as Squaw Peak, Camelback Mountain, and the
legendary Superstitions--a truly awesome experience.

Cactus Kid: Well folks, I gotta admit I've taken a shine to
that there Hyatt meself. She's a right fine kinda place even for
an ol' cowpuncher like me. Them hotel folks really know how to
make ya feel right ta home. One of the real pleasin' things
about that hotel is that it's within spittin' distance (not that
you'd ever wanna do it, don't ya know, but it is within spittin'
distance) from the Matador Restaurant, one of the best da garn
Mexican cantinas in the whole South West.

Bernard: As is customary, the Arizona affiliate will be
hosting the annual NFB Ball on Tuesday evening. This year's gala
event will be held in the elegant ballroom of the Hyatt Regency
Hotel. The orchestra will play, upon request, your favorite
waltzes, polkas, tangos....

Cactus Kid: Orchestrie! You call them an orchestrie? Why
they're the best hot dang country western band I ever hear'd and
yer gonna be sorry if ya don't come join in the rip snortinest
hoedown what ever was. But I might as well tell ya right now,
the Marshal is gonna be at the door and he's gonna make ya check
yer guns. And on account of this here dance be'in a fancy Sunday
goin-ta- meetin' kinda jig in the Hotel's ballroom instead of
Barlow's Barn, the Marshal may not allow chewin' tobaccee what
with dosey doein' yer partner and all, some folks may have a hard
time hittin' the spittoons. But I guarantee we're gonna have the
toe-tappinist, foot-stompinest best night what you won't never
forget.

Bernard: Moving right along, we wish to
inform you that
during Wednesday's afternoon and evening "time on the town" there
will be an endless variety of both relaxing and exhilarating
cultural, recreational, and historical tours and activities
available.

Cactus Kid: Shoot yeah, there's great swimmin' holes, fancy
muzeums, purty places to go shoppin'--ya got sumany ways to have
fun out here, ya'll be as busy as a one-armed octupus with the
hives if ya try to do it all. But the place I's partial to is
the authentic 1880's wild west town just north of Phoenix know'd
as Rawhide. They gots stagecoach rides, little critters fer the
kids to pet, wild west shows, gun fights down main street, gift
shops, and a whole bunch more. And they put on the meanist
Bar-B-Q ya ever smacked your lips to. This here's the place to
learn how the West was fun.

Bernard: You may recall that at the 1984 convention in
Phoenix, Arizona, the quality and quantity of door prizes was far
superior to that of any other convention. It is with pleasure
that I announce that the Arizona affiliate will be spending more
than twice as much money for door prizes at this convention as we
did for the highly successful 1984 convention. The list of high
quality electronic products, jewelry, small appliances, and other
desirable merchandise, in addition to cash prizes, is simply too
lengthy to elaborate on here. In addition to doubling our budget
for door prizes, the grand prize to be given away at the 1987
banquet will be $1,500 in cash.

Cactus Kid: Folks, what Barney and me is tryin' to say is,
it don't much matter whether yer from the big city or one of our
country cousins and it don't matter how many conventions ya been
to, ya ain't never sawed one like this one's a gonna be.

DIABETICS SHOULD LOSE WEIGHT,
AVOID DIET FADS

by Gina Kolata

(This article--which appears in the "Research News" section
of Science magazine for January 9,1987--was sent to us by Karen
Mayry, President of the Diabetic Division of the National
Federation of the Blind. Since diabetes is one of the major
causes of blindness and since so many of our members are
diabetics, it seems appropriate to carry the article in the
Monitor.)

If ever there were a disease that is caused by life-styles,
it is noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). By far
the predominant form of diabetes, it is a disease almost
exclusively of overweight, sedentary adults. It accounts for 90%
of all diabetes in this country and is a leading cause of death
as well as the major reason for new cases of blindness, kidney
failure, and limb amputation.

Last month the National Institutes of Health convened a
consensus panel to review current data on NIDDM and to recommend
ways to prevent and treat the disease. In particular, the panel
considered the roles of diet and exercise in NIDDM. During the
course of the three-day meeting, the panel heard and accepted
data that contradict many commonly held beliefs about diet and
exercise.

For example, it may not be true that exercise increases the
metabolic rate for hours to come. And exercise is not
necessarily a particularly potent adjunct to a low-calorie diet.
People frequently compensate for a bout of exercise by eating
more or by moving less for the rest of the day.

The
diet picture is just as clouded. The problem, said panel chairman George
Cahill of Howard Hughes Medical Institute
in Bethesda, Maryland, is that "we have got to be so careful that
fads don't get to be dictums before their efficacy is known." For
example, researchers at the meeting questioned whether the
current fiber fad is supported by good clinical evidence and cast
doubt on the utility of using the glycemic index, which shows how
different foods affect blood sugar levels, to plan a diabetic
diet.

The diet and exercise questions are paramount in NIDDM
because it is a disease of obesity. Excess body fat alters
glucose metabolism even in persons who are not diabetic. What
happens is that, for unknown reasons, obese persons become
insulin-resistant. If the obese person is not diabetic, the
pancreas compensates by producing more insulin; therefore, blood
glucose remains within the normal range. But, in persons with
NIDDM, the pancreas does not make more insulin and, as a
consequence, cells do not take up glucose or take up very little.

In addition, the liver produces excess glucose, thus exacerbating
the problem. The result is high concentrations of blood glucose,
or diabetes.

Just as obesity leads to insulin resistance, so weight loss
reverses this condition. When persons with NIDDM lose weight,
they frequently are no longer diabetic.

For this
reason, said Cahill, "diet is the hallmark" of
diabetes therapy. Overweight diabetics should lose weight, and
persons who know they have a family history of diabetes should
avoid becoming overweight in the first place.

Gerald
Reaven of Stanford University cautions that a negative family history by
no means indicates that a person is
not at risk. "Family history is a joke," he remarks, because as
many as half of all persons with NIDDM are undiagnosed. It is
easy to ignore diabetes since, in many cases, there are no
warning signs and it is perfectly possible that family members
had diabetes and did not know it.

Reaven--and the
consensus panel--advise all overweight adults to consider themselves at risk
for diabetes and to have
their blood glucose levels tested. They also note that a
subgroup of the obese is particularly at risk. People who have
what Per Bjorntorp of the University of Goteborg in Sweden calls "apple-shaped" as opposed to "pear- shaped" bodies
are
particularly prone to develop NIDDM because abdominal fat, which
predominates in the apple-shaped individuals, is more
metabolically active, and individuals with large deposits of
abdominal fat have more free fatty acids in their blood. This
condition may lead to increased glucose production by the liver.

Of
course, it is one thing to advise people to lose weight and quite another
to have them do it. "The long-term
effectiveness of any diet therapy is terrible and will remain
terrible until we learn why people become obese," Clifton
Bogardus of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases in Phoenix, Arizona, told the panel.

The
panel wrote in its consensus statement, "While
acknowledging the poor prognosis for weight maintenance, the
panel recommends that most obese patients with NIDDM be
maintained on diets moderately restricted in calories." It
further suggested behavioral therapy, group support, and
nutrition counseling to help patients lose weight and keep it
off.

The next question is what sort of foods are
best for diabetics. The American Diabetes Association recommends a diet
that is high in complex carbohydrates and rich in fiber. But,
says Aaron Vinik of the University of Michigan Medical Center, "the dogma is now coming under closer scrutiny and remains a
controversial issue." For one, he notes, "these diets are
substantially different from the average American diet," and
their safety and efficacy are not well-established. The existing
studies are difficult to compare because they use different kinds
of fiber, and some use combinations of soluble and insoluble
fibers whose effects, Vinik suggests, "may counteract each
other." In addition, researchers frequently change other
components of the diet in addition to fiber content, and
different researchers use different criteria to assess the
effects of high-fiber diets.

Finally, the high-fiber
diets may have some adverse
consequences. "There is more and more evidence that diabetics
are prone to bone thinning," says Vinik. There are some hints
that persons with digestive problems--and that includes 80% of
all NIDDM patients over age 55-- may not absorb calcium and other
minerals properly when they eat high-fiber diets.

The
consensus panel agreed with Vinik. The results of fiber studies are inconclusive,
it said, and the diets may be
unpalatable and not even safe for all diabetics. Robert
Silverman of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases, who chaired the planning committee for the
consensus conference, comments, "We're not saying that fiber is
bad. We're saying that, frankly, from the data we've seen, we're
not impressed."

The panel also looked at the glycemic index as a way of
planning diabetic diets. David Jenkins of the University of
Toronto and others find that certain foods, including pasta and
beans, produce a gradual increase in blood sugar and insulin
whereas other foods, including potatoes, produce a more rapid
rise. Proponents of the glycemic index suggest that diabetics
emphasize the slow-release foods.

But the panel
disagreed. "We are withholding judgment,"
says Silverman. "A lot of ink has been spent on the glycemic
index, and it may turn out to be interesting, once we figure out
what the meaning is." The problem is to determine how
combinations of foods affect blood sugar as well as how a
person's race, sex, age, body weight, and even the time of day he
eats the food affect blood sugar responses.

Cahill
stresses how much work needs to be done on the glycemic index before it becomes
practical. "One of the
questions we asked during the conference was, 'How reproducible
is the index in a single individual?' No one's done that
experiment. They just look at averages across groups. For a
given individual, it may be meaningless or it may be very
important." For now, Cahill says, his personal opinion is that
the glycemic index is "a bucket of fluff."

When
it came to the question of exercise, the consensus
panel concluded that "the risk-benefit ratio of exercise in NIDDM
remains to be defined." But it recommended moderate exercise
because of evidence that exercise may help prevent heart disease.

Exercise has been advocated as an aid to weight loss and as
a way to normalize blood glucose levels. Both of these claims
were disputed by speakers at the conference.

F.
Xavier Pi-Sunyer of Columbia University, for example, reported that when
obese people entered an exercise program, they
moved less for the rest of the day, negating the extra calories
they burned exercising. This occurred even when the people
exercised enough to burn 25% of their normal daily calories.
Afterwards, they would lie down and not move much, Pi-Sunyer
said. In addition, he said, "there is no substantial effect of
exercise on metabolic rate. This is touted as a great benefit of
exercise and it just does not occur." Pi-Sunyer concluded that he
is "relatively pessimistic" that the amounts of exercise that are
reasonable for diabetics can have much effect on weight loss.

Several of the meeting participants, including Neil Ruderman
of Boston University Medical Center, reported that diabetics
consistently are less physically fit than nondiabetics as
measured by their maximum oxygen consumption. And diabetics,
after exercising, have an increased insulin sensitivity. This
might indicate that exercise could alleviate diabetes, but
Ruderman and others find that the effects of exercise are
short-lived, disappearing in as few as 72 hours. So if exercise
is to benefit diabetics at all, they must exercise regularly.
But, like weight control, regular exercise is easier said than
done.

The panel concluded, says Cahill, that "exercise
in general
should be demystified."

So, in the end, the panel stressed weight loss as the one
clearly beneficial treatment for NIDDM and the avoidance of
obesity as the one clear way to prevent the disease. But,
unfortunately, of all the health advice, weight loss is among the
most difficult advice to follow.

High-Carb Diets Questioned

The American Diabetes Association and the American Heart
Association recommend that diabetics, like the rest of the
population, consume no more than 30% of their calories as fat.
Most Americans now consume 40% of their calories as fat and,
according to the heart association, the only way to consume 30%
fat is to substitute vegetable meals for some that now contain
meat.

But Gerald Reaven of Stanford University School of Medicine
questions whether diabetics and hypertensives, who share many of
the same biochemical abnormalities, should reduce their fat
calories to less than 40%. For these populations, Reaven argues,
very low fat diets can actually increase the risk of heart
disease.

Reaven presented his hypothesis at a recent
consensus
conference at the National Institutes of Health that met to
assess the data on the prevention and treatment of diabetes. The
panel did not ignore Reaven. It suggested that any diabetic who
goes on a high- carbohydrate diet should be tested soon after
starting the diet to be sure the diet does not adversely affect
the blood lipids. "I think there's a lot to Reaven's argument,"
says Robert Silverman of the National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a member of the planning
committee for the consensus meeting. "His data speak for
themselves."

George Cahill of Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, who was chairman of the consensus panel, thought Reaven's
comments were "very appropriate. There are fads in nutrition and we
(the
panel) feel the high carbohydrate one has gone a little too far."

The
problem, according to Reaven, is that the low-fat diets that are currently
in fashion are also high-carbohydrates.
Reaven says, "anyone who consumes more carbohydrates has to
dispose of the load by secreting more insulin." A slim,
physically fit person is already very sensitive to insulin and
secretes only a small amount in response to carbohydrates. But
diabetics--and hypertensives--secrete much more because their
tissues are relatively insensitive to insulin. (Reaven and
others find that persons with high blood pressure have higher
levels of blood glucose and insulin than persons whose blood
pressure is normal.) High concentrations of insulin are
associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

There is already a threefold variation in insulin
sensitivity among normal, apparently healthy individuals, Reaven
points out. Rsearchers studying large populations in Paris,
Australia, and Helsinki have shown, in prospective studies of
nondiabetic people, that the 20% who secrete the most insulin in
response to carbohydrates are at the highest risk of heart
disease.

There are two explanations that might account for this
association between insulin and heart disease. First, there is a
good correlation between hyperinsulinemia and very low density
lipoproteins, or VLDL, synthesis by the liver. Insulin, Reaven
notes, activates liver enzyme systems that favor VLDL synthesis.
High VLDL levels are a risk factor for heart disease.

Second, there is a good correlation between high insulin
levels and low levels of high-density lipoproteins, which protect
against heart disease. The biochemical reasons for this are
unknown, but it is, says Reaven, a consistent finding.

Reaven emphasizes that a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet
may only be risky for diabetics and hypertensives. But he also
says that his advice that diabetics and hypertensives get 40% of
their calories from fats does not mean that they should consume
saturated fats.

But, for now, Reaven's advice to
diabetics and hypertensives
places nutritionists in a bind. "High protein levels can be bad
for the kidneys. High fat is bad for your heart. Now Reaven is
saying not to eat high carbohydrates. We have to eat something,"
says Silverman. Although he thinks Reaven's argument is
justified, he says, "Sometimes we wish it would go away because
nobody knows how to deal with it."

DIABETIC DIVISION OF NFB

by Karen Mayry

Reprinted from the December,
1986, Michigan Focus

The National Federation of the Blind Diabetic Division was
formally organized in 1985, when a need was felt by members of
the NFB to share experiences they were facing as diabetics. Many
of us had faced vision loss, renal failure, amputation, nerve
damage, strokes, heart attacks, et cetera. We felt we could
offer our support and information to other diabetics who might be
undergoing the same ramifications of diabetes.

Since our formal organizing as a division within the NFB, we
have nearly tripled our membership. Members meet together, phone
one another, and correspond regarding similar interests and
problems. Information is exchanged, thereby better educating all
of us.

In January, 1986, we began publishing our quarterly
newsletter. It is written primarily by members and is upbeat and
positive. All of us are learning new information about our
disease. Our newsletter--Voice of the Diabetic-- includes a
question and answer column by Dr. Ronald James, who is a
diabetic. The newsletter contains much information, including
recipes, locations where aids for measuring insulin and other
diabetic devices may be purchased, plus many other articles. The
newsletter is available in print, as well as on cassette tapes.
The tapes may be requested when one becomes a member for a $2.00
fee. The South Dakota Library for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped duplicates the tapes and sends them out. Individuals
must return them in order to receive the next issue of the
newsletter.

The Diabetic Division does NOT wish to replace an
individual's own physician or the American Diabetes Association.
But we felt a need to share which was not being met elsewhere.
The majority of the members are diabetics who have undergone one
or more side effects of diabetes. However, we have members who
are not diabetic as well as diabetics who have not had any
complications. Our primary purpose is to help one another
through information, sharing of knowledge, and experience.

At this point, individuals from seven foreign countries have
inquired about our Diabetic Division, reinforcing our belief that
there is a need for our support network. Print copies of our
newsletter are being distributed to radio reading services,
A.D.A. Chapters, physicians, diabetic nutritionists, clinics,
transplant centers, optometrists, and ophthalmologists, as well
as many other individuals. You can help by informing your
relatives and friends, as well as those listed above, about the
work of our Diabetic Division. All of us will benefit as more
and more individuals learn about our support network.

Dues for membership may be sent to: Carol Anderson,
Treasurer, NFB Diabetic Division, 23 Lakeshore Drive South,
Randolph, New Jersey 07869. For those persons who wish only to
receive our newsletter without membership, the cost is $6.00.
That, too, may be sent to Carol.

(This article concerning the attitudes toward blind people
of the Oregon Civil Rights Division appears in the first issue of
the newly established newsletter of the National Federation of
the Blind of Oregon. As most Monitor readers know, David Hyde is
the President of the NFB of Oregon. As one reads the article, a
familiar pattern emerges. The government agencies established to
protect civil rights do little to protect the civil rights of the
blind. If the National Federation of the Blind does not initiate
action to protect the rights of the blind in a given case or if a
blind individual does not do it with Federation backing, the
action is usually not taken. Before officials of the government
agencies charged with protecting our civil rights can try to
change the attitudes and behavior of others, their own attitudes
and behavior must usually be changed--and almost without
exception we are the ones who must make it happen. The Oregon
experience as related in this article is worth pondering.)

Over the last ten years, or perhaps more, the Civil Rights
Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor has claimed to assist
blind persons with Civil Rights cases. All we need do, we have
been told, is to file a complaint with this Division, and after
negotiation, finding of facts, and consultation, should our cases
have merit, the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of
Labor will help in promoting equal opportunities for blind
Oregonians. Here are the facts. Judge for yourself.

In
April of 1985 Dottie Burk Nealy filed a case with the division against Albertina
Kerr Day Care Center in Portland. She
alleged that she had been unfairly dismissed from her position as
a care provider because of a rule promulgated by the Department
of Public Welfare, now the Children's Services Division, which
stated that blind individuals cannot be counted in the Center's
child-to-adult ratios. Dottie left her job, and it was clear
that this rule was the cause. In April of 1978 the Department of
Public Welfare, because of pressure and threatened legal action
by the Federation, changed the rule. It was clear that they
found it discriminatory, too. In March of 1979 the Civil Rights
Division came out with their "findings of fact." They stated that
because the rule had been changed after the complaint, then no
discrimination had occurred.

In September of 1977 Bill Shephard was refused service in an
establishment serving food and beverages in downtown Portland.
The proprietor called the police to remove him from the premises
when he insisted that blind persons could not be refused services
solely on the basis of blindness under the state's White Cane
Law. The law was clear and unequivocal. Mr. Shephard filed a
complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of
Labor. After about a year of inaction Mr. Shephard withdrew his
complaint and filed a civil suit with Multnomah County, which we
of course won.

In 1981 members of the Federation worked with the Ways and
Means Committee of the Oregon Legislature to require that the
Civil Rights Division finalize cases within twelve months of
filing. After twelve months one can lose the right of private
action in the courts. We were successful, over the objections of
Labor Commissioner Mary Windy Roberts, who pledged to work with
us and improve things.

In 1983 I filed a case with the Civil Rights Division
against the Metropolitan Public Defender, Inc. in Portland. I
had applied for a job, gone through three interviews, had
discussed how I could perform, and had performed similar jobs to
the Trial Assistant position for which I had applied in the
Corrections Division. In their letter of refusal the company
stated that they had concerns on how I might find the courthouse,
how I could read the bulletin board, how I could take notes for
transcription for delivery later, how I could use the telephone,
and many other interesting questions. I had dealt with those
concerns during our interviews. I had discussed them freely,
listened to their suggestions, and had (I believe) answered all
the questions before.

In the letter of refusal the company told me that I was
their best applicant and would have gotten the job except that I
was blind, and they would like to consider me for a more
realistic position. The record was clear, and I filed. I wanted
that job.

After a year of inaction, I withdrew the case. In doing so
I found some interesting things about the process. Here they are
for future filers with the division.

1. Although the proceedings are a quasi-judicial
procedure, such as an administrative hearing, documents filed by
one party are not available to the other. There is no way to
refute evidence that you have no access to.

2. Even if you win, the respondent need take no action.
The ruling of the division has no force of law. However, the
Attorney General may take on the case if he chooses.

3. There are no rules of evidence. Opinion, innuendo,
heresay, and downright lies are as admissible as are facts.
After all, you, the plaintiff, cannot see them until the decision
is already made.

4. If you choose a right of private action, the division
closes your case.

We have no other course than to conclude that unlike
Portia's justice, this procedure doth not fall like the gentle
rain of heaven. It may fall of its own weight of paper and
procedure, but it is not good to be under it when it does.

As
I stated at the state convention, Mrs. Johnny Bell of the Bureau's Civil
Rights Division (its Director, in fact) was a
scheduled speaker at our convention. She told me in a letter
that "more pressing things had arisen." It leads one to wonder
how such things could have arisen for so many years and how
things could have gotten in the shape they are in.

In considering legislation for the 1987 session, one of the
more serious problems we must address is that of civil rights for
the blind of Oregon. Is there hope for the division? Must the
blind or handicapped remain among the less pressing things at the
division? Must we wait for all other minorities to be dealt with
before we are given the bones of justice to gnaw? The time has
come for us either to reform civil rights for the blind in the
Bureau of Labor by establishing timetables, rules of evidence,
and discovery procedures or to remove that program from
Commissioner Robert's jurisdiction. We have nothing to lose,
since we have nothing now.

You should be aware, in the spirit of fairness, that a copy
of this issue is going to the good commissioner and to Mrs. Bell.

I here pledge to print their comments without editing, so long as
they respond to the above questions of evidence and good faith.
Be it known, however, that we the blind are tired to death of
justice denied and civil rights deferred. If we cannot depend
upon the people who are charged with protecting our civil rights,
then we must, perforce, do it ourselves.

MARCH
ON WASHINGTON BIGGEST AND MOST ENTHUSIASTIC EVER

On Sunday, February 1, 1987, more than 300 members of the
National Federation of the Blind from throughout the country met
at the Capitol Holiday Inn in Washington, D.C., to kick off what
has become an annual event of great importance to the blind.
Early in the day there were meetings of blind vendors and those
interested in promoting and strengthening the Associates program.

Then, at 5:00 p.m. President Maurer gaveled the general session
to order. By actual count well over 300 people were present in
the room. President Maurer gave a status review of the
Federation and talked about developments throughout the country.
He discussed the upcoming national convention in Phoenix, the
scholarship program, the Job Opportunities for the Blind program,
civil rights cases, and other matters. This was followed by a
report from NFB Executive Director Kenneth Jernigan, who talked
about the remodeling and renovation now taking place at the
National Center for the Blind in Baltimore and read a new NFB
brochure entitled "Do You Know A Blind Person." An initial
printing of 500,000 copies has been made of this document, which
is now available for state and local affiliates to use in their
public relations efforts. The Executive Director also discussed
the upcoming national convention, future conventions, and
developments in the National Office.

Then, James Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs talked
about the details of the program for the next three days. Next
Barbara Pierce, Chairman of the Public Relations Committee,
discussed media contacts and how we should deal with the press
during the next few days. This was followed by comments from NFB
First Vice President Diane McGeorge, who discussed hotel
arrangements and other details of the March. It was one of the
most enthusiastic meetings which we have ever had, and it was
clear that the week would be both active and productive.

Beginning on Monday morning, February 2, representatives of
the blind of the nation (more than forty-three states were in
evidence) went to Capital Hill to talk with the members of
Congress and the staff members in the Congressional offices. In
many instances, of course, the conversations occurred with top
administrative staff, but it is not exaggeration to say that
(almost without exception) substantive talks were held with the
Congressmen and Senators who chair the relevant committees and
who are the ranking members of those committees. The response
from the Representatives, the Senators, and the office staff was
gratifyingly positive. It is clear that the Braille Monitor is
read in the Congressional and Senatorial offices and that there
is a positive and cumulative effect from former marches.

On Tuesday morning, February 3, the blind gathered outside
of the Department of Transportation building to make a visible
demonstration to governmental officials and members of the
general public concerning the problems we have been having with
the airlines. There was a great deal of news coverage of the
event, and the Congressional reaction made it clear that a strong
and positive impression had been made. Our information is that
within a week after the March more than seventy Representatives
and Senators had contacted the Department of Transportation to
ask that something be done to improve the situation.

Even though the remodeling taking place at the National
Center for the Blind necessarily curtailed visits to the Center,
quite a number of Federationists came each day during the March
to inspect the work and tour the facilities. As the delegates
began to prepare to leave Washington on Wednesday, it was clear
that this had been one of our most successful efforts. The
Congressional reaction was positive, and the mood among the
Federationists was joyful and upbeat.

The theme
of this year's March was "The Three
Freedoms"--Freedom to Travel, Freedom to Work, and Freedom to
Learn. Members of the press and each Congressional office were
given materials spelling out the details. Here is the material
which was distributed:

--------------------

LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM

From: Members of the National Federation of the Blind

To: Members of the 100th Congress

Re: The Blind: A Legislative Platform for Freedom--Priorities for
the First Session of the 100th Congress

For what avail the plow or sail,
Or land or life, if freedom fail?
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

The history of the world
is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.
--Friedrich Hegel

These things shall be--a loftier race
Than e'er the world hath known shall rise
With flame of freedom in their souls,
And light of knowledge in their eyes.
--John Addington Symonds

Freedom is a desired state of being that all people (blind
and sighted alike) share in common. Fifty thousand people
(including those who are born blind) become blind in the United
States each year.

Blind Americans share a unique struggle for freedom. Most
sighted people in our society have had some contact with
blindness through friends, family members, co-workers,
colleagues, business associates, or other forms of social
interaction. Despite these contacts, blindness remains one of
the most misunderstood conditions. We are not even accustomed to
the idea that the blind would need to struggle for freedom. The
more common understanding is that the blind (presumably being in
need) are taken care of. So why would they want to be free?
Assumptions such as this are part of the great misunderstanding
about blindness, and that is why we who are blind must now
struggle for our freedom.

More than anything (including the physical limitations of
blindness), lack of knowledge and misunderstanding about
blindness result in public policies, public programs, and even
laws that diminish opportunities for blind people to exercise
freedom and their potential to the full. This is why we have
formed the National Federation of the Blind (NFB).

NFB is a private sector resource of knowledge,
encouragement, and support for the blind and for all people
(blind or not) who seek greater freedom and opportunity for the
blind. We are proud of our self-help traditions, philosophy, and
achievements. The vast majority of our members are blind. We
join NFB through local chapters and statewide organizations
everywhere in the United States.

We are the voice of the nation's blind--the blind speaking
for themselves. Our priorities for the first session of the
100th Congress include three freedoms: (1) the freedom to travel;
(2) the freedom to work; and (3) the freedom to learn. (See
brief descriptions which follow.) This freedom platform for the
blind is nothing less than our declaration of equality and
independence in three critical areas of human life.

Decisions which can and will be made during this session of
the 100th Congress will significantly affect our achievement of
these three freedoms for the blind of America today.
Accordingly, the following positions are advanced in order to
help focus the issues and provide solutions that will build lives
of freedom for the blind both now and in years to come.

(1)
Freedom to Travel -- Congress should act to assure fair treatment for the
blind in air travel. This request seeks
renewed and continued actions by members of Congress (including
oversight by appropriate committees of Congress) aimed at freeing
blind people from discriminatory practices of many commercial
airlines and the commercial aviation industry itself. The "Air
Carrier Access Act" (passed last year and signed into law) has
not yet been implemented by the Department of Transportation
(DOT).

The law (Public Law 99-435) prohibits commercial
airlines
from discriminating against qualified handicapped people, but the
airlines' and DOT's regulation writers and enforcement personnel
are behaving as though Congress will allow the usual
discriminatory procedures to continue without further action to
require fair treatment in air travel. It seems that the airlines
and federal enforcement authorities have little regard for the
law or the will of Congress, and there is no predicting how long
the new law will be ignored. While it is ignored, blind people
are denied the freedom to fly without having airline personnel
whimsically exercise toward them misunderstood, misapplied, and
misguided procedures. Most outrageous are the arrests of blind
people who take seats assigned to them by the airlines and then
are arrested and hauled off to jail for not moving. Yet, DOT
enforcement authorities refuse to intervene to protect the
personal liberties and safety of blind passengers. The fact
sheet entitled "Air Travel for the Blind Means Hostile Skies:
Action Needed Now" gives more details and suggests specific
actions that should be taken by all members of the 100th
Congress.

(2) Freedom to work -- Congress should amend the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to provide that all jobs in work shops
supplying products to the government are made available on a
priority basis to blind and severely handicapped persons who
qualify. This proposal seeks specific legislative reforms to
expand the number and type of employment opportunities that are
created for blind and handicapped people through special
government procurement arrangements made under the Javits-
Wagner-O'Day Act. Under existing law direct labor jobs are
promoted for the blind and handicapped. This has resulted in a
tokenism approach in most workshops which employ only a few blind
people in responsible jobs.

The proposal for amendments
to the law will assure more even-handed opportunities for the blind to participate
in all
workshop jobs and to be given training and other forms of
consideration for employment at increasing levels of
responsibility and pay. The fact sheet entitled "Federal Buying
From Sheltered Workshops: A Proposal for Improved Employment
Opportunities for Blind and Handicapped Individuals" gives more
details and background with specific rationale for improving
known and documented deficiencies in workshop hiring and
employment practices.

(3) Freedom to learn -- Congress
should amend the Social Security Act to give blind beneficiaries of Social
Security
Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income the
flexibility they need in choosing acceptable and desirable
sources of
post-secondary training and employment services. This proposal
seeks to give the blind greater freedom to select, design, and
pursue the assistance normally required to become employed and
self-supporting. Under existing law beneficiaries of Social
Security programs (and all other blind people seeking training
and employment services) are blocked in most cases from obtaining
this help through any agency other than a single agency in each
state, approved by the federal government. Existing law
authorizes Social Security to reimburse the state agencies when a
beneficiary achieves employment, but states are reluctant to
participate substantially in this "results-oriented" program.

Providing
funds to participants rather than to programs would be a better option. That
can be done by letting each
beneficiary choose which agency or agencies will be most
responsive. The beneficiary (not a government agency) is often
in the best position to know which agencies can best meet the
need. Under a plan which gives blind beneficiaries greater
freedom to choose sponsoring agencies for their training and
employment programs, cost-effective reimbursement for services
could be made to private agencies as well as to state
rehabilitation agencies. The outline and advantages of this
improved program are presented in the fact sheet entitled "Breaking the
Monopoly: A Proposal for Improved Training and Employment Services for Blind
Individuals."

Blind people are asking for your help in securing positive
action by Congress and the Executive Branch in the areas outlined
here. To the extent necessary new legislation to achieve these
and our other objectives will be introduced in the 100th
Congress.

Many priorities confront this session of Congress, but the
needs of the nation's blind must not be neglected in the
legislative agenda. We of the National Federation of the Blind
stand ready to assist our Representatives and Senators to
understand our needs and to take meaningful action to address
them. This year we are seeking to achieve three priority goals
of freedom--freedom to travel, freedom to work, and freedom to
learn. In partnership with the National Federation of the Blind,
each member of Congress can help secure these three freedoms for
the blind. Freedom in all areas of life is our greatest national
resource. It was the quest for freedom that burned in the hearts
of the founding fathers of our country. It is freedom from
tyranny and freedom to achieve that have made our country great.
So it is for the sighted--and so it must be for the blind.

--------------------

FACT SHEET

Air Travel for the Blind Means
Hostile Skies: Action Needed Now

Our Goal: Freedom to Travel

The Problem: Commercial air travel is essential for most
people and no less so for blind people, but many airlines treat
blind people as second-class citizens. They require the blind to
obey restrictive procedures normally used for very small
unaccompanied children or for people unable to think or act for
themselves. The procedures vary markedly among the airlines.
Federal authorities deny condoning the demeaning restrictions
while covertly encouraging the airlines to discriminate and
adopting a "hands-off," nonenforcement posture.

Some of the commonly practiced, unjustifiable restrictions
are: prohibitions on seating blind people in or near emergency
exit rows (not applied by all airlines and not a federal
requirement); other seating restrictions (such as window seats
only) placing blind people at or near the end of emergency
evacuation lines (applied by a few but not by most airlines);
specific instructions for blind people to evacuate after others
in an emergency (frequently stated by flight personnel during
patronizing pre-flight briefings given especially to the blind,
regardless of their flying experience or ability to comprehend
the public announcements); required pre-boarding of blind persons
so as to separate them from the rest of the passenger load,
including people with whom they may be traveling; seatbelt
fastening exercises in which blind people are required publicly
to prove to the satisfaction of the flight attendant that they
can fasten and unfasten a seatbelt; and countless other similarly
demeaning procedures applied routinely to the blind without
justification.

Aviation industry officials increasingly seek to enforce
these restrictions with condescending hostility. There are
instances of physical abuse and attack upon blind persons during
recent hostile confrontations provoked by airline personnel. In
a sharply rising tide of incidents, verbal threats have publicly
been made to blind passengers to embarrass and bully them into
compliance with unreasonable demands. Blind people who take seat
assignments given them by the airlines are almost routinely
arrested for doing so. Yet, federal enforcement authorities at
the Department of Transportation (DOT) have declined to intervene
to protect the personal liberties and safety of blind passengers
by refusing seriously to consider specific complaints.

Status
of Federal Law and Regulations: The "Air
Carrier Access Act" (Public Law 99-435) prohibits discrimination
by airlines against qualified handicapped persons. Even without
that law, Section 404 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and
regulations at 14 CFR Part 382 give DOT enforcement authority to
combat discriminatory practices of airlines. In one case (DOT
vs. Southwest Airlines) these legal provisions were successfully
applied.

No regulations have been issued to implement
Public Law 99-435. Having effective rules may take some time. Nothing will
be done, however, if the process to make the rules never begins.
Meanwhile airlines are disregarding the law. DOT has done
nothing to urge voluntary compliance by the airlines or to step
up enforcement of existing nondiscrimination regulations. This
federal "hands-off" posture gives airlines a clear message: "It
is still all right to discriminate against the blind." As one
official of an airline recently said: "Congress doesn't run this
airline."

Lax Enforcement: Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole
has acknowledged to Congress that DOT can order airlines to stop
discriminating against the blind even without issuing specific
regulations under Public Law 99-435. However, DOT's pattern of
inaction and nonenforcement does not match Secretary Dole's
affirmative stance. Complaints filed with DOT's enforcement
offices are commonly met with ambivalence if not with hostility
and are summarily dismissed. The facts (contained in airline
statements plainly showing discrimination) are not considered
seriously. The only perceivable enforcement policy of DOT is to
deny complaints with the sole exception of the extreme
circumstances of the Southwest Airlines case.

Actions Needed: Members and committees of the Congress
should act now to forestall further delays in rulemaking and
enforcement to implement the Air Carrier Access Act and existing
DOT regulations. Letters should be sent to Secretary Dole to
insist:

(1) that the rule-making procedure to implement Public Law
99-435 begin immediately without further delay or indecision;

(2) that Mrs. Dole should use the informal powers of her
office to persuade airline officials to cooperate in a voluntary
initiative to reverse the pattern of hostile incidents against
the blind; and

(3) that she direct DOT personnel to strengthen enforcement
of existing regulations as an interim step to carry out the will
of Congress and the President in approving Public Law 99-435.

Members of responsible committees of Congress (including
Authorizing, Appropriations, and Oversight Committees and
Subcommittees) should be alert to all possible opportunities to
ask Secretary Dole and other DOT officials for progress reports
on steps being taken toward achieving the objectives stated here.

In the Federal Register of August 22, 1986, 51 FR 30078, DOT
asked for public comment on specific issues of air travel
discrimination against the blind. Comments (especially from
blind persons) were extensive. They form a sufficient record for
DOT to act now on resolving all of the blindness-related airline
discrimination problems. The eventual full implementation of
Public Law 99-435 could be helpful. Meanwhile the gravity of the
pattern of discrimination against blind people demands immediate
interim action under existing authority consistent with the
clearly expressed will of Congress. No rationale (bureaucratic
or otherwise) can now be given for failing to pursue such
efforts.

--------------------

FACT SHEET

Federal Buying
From Sheltered Workshops:
A Proposal to Improve
Employment Opportunities
For Blind And
Handicapped Individuals

Our Goal: Freedom to Work

A Bill to amend the Act of June 25, 1938, as amended
(commonly known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act) to improve job
opportunities for blind and handicapped individuals employed in
government procurement activities thereunder, and for other
purposes.

The Problem: Federal agencies are now
required to buy
certain products from qualified nonprofit suppliers, called
sheltered workshops. This policy is intended to promote
employment for blind and severely handicapped people, but the
jobs are limited to light industrial, assembly, and packaging
work, generally referred to as "direct labor."

With only token exceptions the supervisors and managers in
this federal program are not blind or severely handicapped. They
have full-time salaried positions with pay and fringe benefits
that match industry standards. Meanwhile the blind direct labor
employees are often paid only the minimum wage or far below.

Workshop managers tenaciously fight the right of blind
workers to organize labor unions. Layoffs for the direct labor
employees are commonplace. Months elapse during which many of
these blind workers have no work and no unemployment compensation
to tide them over. Their non-blind managers and supervisors are
full-time and well paid. Even the sighted who work in direct
labor receive fair wages in contrast to the much lower pay
received by blind employees, who perform similar work and often
out- produce the more highly paid sighted employees. A typical
example is a Connecticut workshop that recently reported average
pay for blind workers of less than $2.00 per hour. Sighted
employees in the same workshop doing similar tasks were paid over
$4.00 an hour.

Proposed Legislation: Congress
should amend the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act to insure that all jobs
in the
sheltered workshop program it supports are made available on a
priority basis to qualified blind and handicapped persons.
Legislation entitled the "Javits-Wagner-O'Day Employment
Opportunities Improvement Act of 1987" has been prepared to
provide this priority. The bill would require:

(1) participating workshops to have specific, written goals
and timetables for promoting or hiring qualified blind and
handicapped persons into all positions beyond direct labor;

(2) special recruiting procedures which each participating
workshop must follow in obtaining an adequate pool of qualified
blind and handicapped applicants for all positions beyond direct
labor;

(3) training, advancement, and career development programs
at participating workshops so that blind and handicapped people
are given opportunities to become qualified for responsible
positions at all levels;

(4) non-interference policies to protect organizing and
collective bargaining rights of all employees of participating
workshops; and

(5) other administrative changes to improve federal
leadership and monitoring of employment opportunities and rights
of employees and applicants for employment in this program.

Recent Congressional Action Makes Progress Possible Now:
Until recently, protecting the rights of workers has not been a
driving concern in passing legislation favorable to workshops.
Managers of shops promote themselves as benevolent caretakers of
the blind, but persistent reports of low pay and dissatisfied
workers have made members of Congress cautious in considering new
concessions for workshops without worker protection features
built in. Last year's amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(Public Law 99-486) show that Congress is becoming more sensitive
to the need for protecting workers' rights even in sheltered
workshops. Refusal by the last Congress to give for-profit small
business set-aside contracts to non-profit sheltered workshops
also shows that workshop bills must promote labor interests in
order to pass.

Now it is time for Congress to act affirmatively on a
broader but modest reform of the JWOD program. The House is
already on record in support of better employment opportunities
for the blind in administrative and technical support jobs with
the two central management agencies that are designated to
operate under the JWOD Act. (See H.R. 5294 and House Report
99-723, making appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service,
and General Government for Fiscal Year 1987, 99th Congress,
second session.)

During the previous year the Senate Appropriations Committee
also found deficiencies in the JWOD program's employment
practices in failing to hire and promote blind and handicapped
persons. (See Senate Report 99-133, 99th Congress, first
session.)

On a broader scale the House Committee
on Government
Operations found "tokenism" in the hiring and promotion of blind
and handicapped persons into management and supervisory jobs in
the JWOD program. (See House Report 98-546, "Improvements Needed
in the Administration of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act," 98th
Congress, first session.)

These documents show that responsible committees of the
Congress are well aware of the need to reform employment
opportunities for blind and severely handicapped persons in the
JWOD program. Further study of these issues will not materially
change the legislative result, but it will certainly prolong the
delay in achieving a solution beneficial to the blind and
severely handicapped workers under the Act. The JWOD Act has
existed almost unchanged in its basic employment approach and
philosophy since 1938. Now it is time to update and improve the
law by insuring that all blind and handicapped workers have a
fair chance to be hired for all jobs for which they can qualify.
That is the modern-day standard which Congress has set in equal
employment opportunity legislation. Employing the blind and
handicapped at all levels throughout this program will not occur
unless the underlying law is changed.

--------------------

FACT SHEET

Breaking the Monopoly:
A Proposal for Improved
Training and Employment Services
For Blind Individuals

Our Goal: Freedom to Learn

A bill to amend title II and title XVI of the Social
Security Act to provide blind individuals who receive benefits
thereunder greater freedom to design, select and pursue training
and employment service programs to the end that such individuals
will become successfully employed.

Background:
This paper describes the current federal approach for funding vocational
rehabilitation services and an
alternative legislative proposal to improve training and
employment services for the blind. In 1920 Congress created the
Vocational Rehabilitation Program for the purpose of providing
job skills and employment to handicapped people who could work
despite their impairments. The term "vocational" was
deliberately used to identify the employment-centered nature of
the program's goal.

In more recent times, however,
the term "vocational" has
been dropped from the name of the law altogether. With that
change and other substantive amendments to the original basic
legislation the goal of employment for the handicapped is
becoming ever more obscured.

The modern-day rehabilitation act (known as the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended) authorizes and supports a
constellation of medical, social, recreational, vocational,
educational, and research-oriented programs and other efforts
that are intended to improve the living conditions and life
styles of all disabled persons in America. Employment is now one
of many objectives of the law, and certainly no longer the
principal one.

Yet, lack of good training and employment opportunities
remains the uppermost priority need to be fulfilled for more than
seventy percent of all blind people from the time of high school
graduation to retirement age. Recreation, social services, and
even medical care needs will almost all be met for the vast
majority of these blind people if they get suitable jobs with pay
and responsibilities commensurate with their individual
abilities.

Existing Law: Current programs (supported with almost 1.3
billion dollars in federal financial assistance) are operated
largely on a single state agency concept. The blind person in
need of training and employment assistance must seek help from a
specific state government agency designated by law to receive the
federal government's blessing and funds to provide rehabilitation
services.

The state agencies thus control the money (and in many
respects the lives) of those blind people who are trying to
become self-supporting and free from government assistance.
Options for choosing the agencies from which to seek training and
employment assistance are realistically nonexistent for most
blind people. Lack of a free choice for each blind person to
obtain needed services from a public or private agency (selected
by the individual, not by the government) is a major deterrent to
effective, responsive training and employment assistance. Blind
people who need help to get jobs are interested in results, not
in programs.

Proposed Legislation: Under a 1981 change in the Social
Security Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is
authorized to pay for the costs of rehabilitating beneficiaries
of the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. But since results
in the form of successful work for SSDI and SSI beneficiaries
must be achieved under the law, most of the state vocational
rehabilitation agencies cooperate with the Social Security
Administration only to a small extent in this rehabilitation
funding program.

A natural alternative to the present
Social Security funding arrangement would be to allow recipients of SSDI
or SSI benefits
to designate for themselves individually selected sponsoring
agencies, public or private. A legislative proposal, entitled
the "Training and Employment Service for Blind Individuals Act," has
been prepared to set forth necessary amendments to titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act. Under the bill individually
chosen sponsoring agencies could provide services directly or
help to obtain services from other programs. This approach
(funding the participants and letting them choose their programs)
would give each person a wider selection of relevant training and
employment services. Since most blind people who are not
employed receive either SSDI or SSI cash benefits, they would be
immediately eligible under the bill to obtain the training and
job-related assistance they need. They could continue with a
rehabilitation program under the existing state agency structure;
or, with the help of a sponsoring agency of their choosing, they
could obtain alternative training and employment services through
any other program they select. In either case SSDI or SSI funds
would eventually pay the costs as is now done through state
rehabilitation agencies only. The outlays from the Social
Security funds would not be increased.

Advantages of the Improved Pro gram: The program just
described
would be a natural adjunct to the existing state rehabilitation
agency structure. It would leave the existing programs intact
with all of their present financial support now provided under
the Rehabilitation Act. The difference would be greater
selection of relevant services not limited to those available
through assistance by a single agency in each state. State
boundaries (and limits on out-of-state expenditures) would not
prevent finding the best program for each individual. Under the
improved program a source of funding (not tied to any state or
any agency) would be available for anyone who wanted to exercise
a free choice.

To the extent that this program would stimulate competition
among agencies to make their philosophies and programs attractive
to potential participants, funding through Social Security would
create a healthy new environment of services full of new
opportunities and growth. In addition, Social Security funds
paid to achieve training and employment goals would reduce
demands for continuing cash outlays from the SSDI and SSI
programs. This is a cost- effective approach that Congress
should now enact.

THE WILL TO BE FREE: ANOTHER AIRLINE LETTER

by Kenneth Jernigan

The name Joe Chowning has probably never been heard by most
of the members of the National Federation of the Blind. He is
not, and never has been, a state president; nor, so far as I
know, has he ever been a local president. He is a modest man.
It wold not be an exaggeration to say that he is an humble man,
but this does not mean that he does not have principles, pride,
and self-respect.

Mostly he goes about his business, lives a quiet life, and
treats his fellow beings with courtesy and respect. He pays his
own way in the world and does not ask for recognition or the
limelight. In fact, he would undoubtedly be embarrassed to have
it.

Very well, one may say, but where is all of this leading?
There are millions more like that, so why make a to-do about it?

Last December Joe Chowning, along with his wife and
daughter, were taking a routine airplane trip. They went to the
airport without any hostility or thought or problem. They came
away determined that something must be done. The thing that
brought it about was the conduct of the personnel of the airline.

It was not a Monitor article, not a fiery speech, not a devious
plot hatched in the offices of the National Federation of the
Blind. It was the basic affront to human dignity perpetrated by
the airline. This is why no force on earth can stem the rising
tide of determination by the blind to have equal access to air
travel and to be free in their right to enjoy it. Let Joe
Chowning tell his story in his own words:

--------------------

Phoenix, Arizona
December 16, 1986

Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind

Dear Sir:

It has been suggested that I write you about the little
problem we had. We were taking Continental Airlines flight 49
from Orlando to Houston on December 11 at 1:05 p.m. We already
had our tickets. About an hour before takeoff, my daughter went
to the window to get our seat assignment. She did not mention
that I was handicapped, since we didn't anticipate trouble.
There was my wife Clara, myself, and my daughter Dawn Chowning.
We were given three seats together. Later they announced
passengers could board. We started to get on the plane. As we
showed our tickets, the flight attendant abruptly and impolitely
told us that I could not sit by an emergency exit, indicating
that the seats would have to be changed. I became angry. We
walked back to the assigned seats, by the exit, and sat down. I
have no eyeballs and was not wearing dark glasses. No signs were
posted regarding the handicapped. They claimed later that my
daughter should have mentioned my handicap when she got the
boarding passes, but we knew nothing of that requirement. They
said there was an FAA regulation. Various airline personnel came
back to persuade me to move. I would not. I told them that I
wanted all information and that I would sue.

After about an hour they had the Orlando police remove me
from the plane. I was not arrested. The station masters at
Orlando and Houston were very nice. I got the next flight out,
but I could not sit by the exits. I felt I had made my point. A
police report was mailed to me, which I am enclosing.

I think mass picketing should occur across the United
States, possibly selecting one airline at a time, until there is
an agreement. We might buy stock with various airlines and
protest at their board meetings. We might ask blind musicians to
compose songs regarding the problem. Since the lives of the
handicapped are being endangered by such actions, we might
initiate a class action suit. We might go onto planes, occupy
seats by exits, and bring their wrath down upon us.

Sincerely yours,
Joe Chowning

--------------------

At first glance one might wonder why we chose to print this
letter. It is not filled with passion and heat, and certainly
there have been more violent and dramatic confrontations. But
here is a sense that a situation has become intolerable, that
something must be done. Joe Chowning did not ask to sit in the
exit row, but one gets the idea that he would now be willing
deliberately to seek the opportunity--and once there that he
would not willingly depart. He thinks there should be mass
demonstrations and possible court action--and, again, one gets
the idea that (in his own quiet way) he would feel obligated to
do what he could to help. Only a fool or a liar would call this
man a militant or a radical, but in the final determination of
the airline problem the balance (as is so often the case) will
rest with the Joe Chownings.

HAZEL tenBROEK HONORED ON HER 75TH BIRTHDAY

by Marc Maurer

(On Saturday evening, January 17, 1987, there was a gala
party and dinner to celebrate the seventy-fifth birthday of Mrs.
Hazel tenBroek. The party was planned and organized by the
National Federation of the Blind of Washington and was held in
Seattle. Sharon Gold, President of the National Federation of
the Blind of California, was present and spoke. Also present
were National Treasurer Dick Edlund and President Maurer.
Letters and telegrams of congratulations from throughout the
country were received, and it was a milestone to remember in the
history of the Federation. Here is the address delivered by
President Maurer):

On this day we celebrate your seventy- fifth birthday. All
of us in the Federation wish you much joy. In 1937 you and Dr.
tenBroek were married. Three years later, under the leadership of
Dr. tenBroek, there came into being the most vital force in the
lives of the blind that has ever been known--the National
Federation of the Blind. From that moment forward there was a
dramatic new force in the land. There had always been despair,
loneliness, bitterness, the dream that was shattered, the heart
that was broken. But now, there was something else! With the
coming of the Federation came hope, the joy of participation, a
spirit of gladness, a heart that was full, a dream to be
fulfilled. Mrs. tenBroek, you were always part of that hope, that
spirit, that dream. From the beginning you worked alongside Dr.
tenBroek to bring the organized blind movement to fruition.

I have often wondered what it was like--those first years of
the movement. The description Dr. tenBroek gave is moving, but it
cannot encompass the whole story. Dr. tenBroek describes the
beginnings of the Federation this way:

"The
paramount problems of our first decade, the 1940's, were not so much qualitative
as quantitative: we had the
philosophy and the programs, but we lacked the membership and the
means. The workers were few, and the cupboard was bare.

"Each
month as we received our none- too-bountiful salary as a young instructor
at the University of Chicago Law School, Hazel
and I would distribute it among the necessaries of life: food,
clothing, rent, Federation stamps, mimeograph paper, ink, and
other supplies. So did we share our one-room apartment. The
mimeograph paper took far more space in our closet than did our
clothes. We had to move the mimeograph machine before we could
let down the wall bed to retire at night. If on a Sunday we
walked along Chicago's lake front for an hour, four or five fewer
letters were written, dropping our output for that day to fewer
than twenty-five.

"The decade of the forties
was a time of building: and build we did, from a scattering of seven state
affiliates at our first
convention to more than four times that number in 1950. In the
decade of the forties we proved our organizational capacity,
established our representative character, initiated legislative
programs on the state and national levels, and spoke with the
authority and voice of the blind speaking for themselves."

I can understand the description of the work you and Dr.
tenBroek did in the early days of the Federation. It speaks to me
directly. I myself began college at the University of Notre Dame
in 1970. I, too, shared a room with the work of the movement. I
was fundraising chairman for our Indiana affiliate, and often the
cases of candy which I had ordered for fundraising sales took at
least as much space as my desk.

But there is something else which remains a mystery to me.
Sometimes, when I felt discouragement, I would listen to the
words of Dr. tenBroek, and they would bring determination and the
spirit to go forward. In the middle of the night I would think
about the problems of the day, and I would read the words of Dr.
tenBroek and be comforted. At such times it often occurred to me
to wonder what it was that Dr. tenBroek read in the middle of the
night. Did he sit up sometimes and talk with you, Hazel? I am
sure that he did.

Many years later, from 1968 through 1976 you served as
associate editor of the Braille Monitor. That was a tremendous
task. To accomplish this work, you brought energy, commitment,
and talent to the job. The scope of your activities is shown by a
report you gave in 1971. This is what you said:

"The
principal emphasis in the Berkeley office continues to be the production
of the Monitor and other related materials.
From July 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971, 4,092,437 pages were
printed. This required 8,185 reams of paper. The resulting
product had to be collated, stapled, folded, stuffed, and mailed.

"There
were 832 individual requests for materials involving 33,957 separate items;
and 1,752 requests for particular issues
of the Monitor were addressed and mailed. Over 18,000 envelopes
for presidential correspondence were addressed.

"The Monitor continues to grow. The list of our readers is
well over the 10,000 mark. From July 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971,
we handled 4,517 changes in the mailing list. The number of
Monitor readers increased by over twenty percent with 2,219 new
readers."

Then there are the thought-provoking contributions you made
to the philosophy of the movement. One of the questions you asked
was "Are the 'blind' about to disappear?" This is the way you put
it in a memo to Dr. Jernigan:

"It would be
interesting to check into the history of the use of the term 'visually handicapped'
by the agencies. During
the last decade, agencies, private and public, have successfully
implanted in the public mind the idea that there are differences
among those with low, intermediate, and high partial vision and
the totally blind. Further, they have fostered the notion that
there are differences among the totals--that is, the congenitally
as against the adventitiously blinded.

"The
agencies have been working hard at this division for some time. They have
'discovered' differences, they say, in
psychology, learning ability, social adaptation, and
reactions--you know the long list. Having discovered these
differences, the agencies then went about the business of
'documenting' them through 'empirical' studies.... Since they
started, not with an intellectual or philosophical inquiry but
with pre-packaged 'conclusions,' it was not hard to build a
sizable amount of 'evidence' to substantiate the conclusions they
sought....

"The harm to blind people and to
the organized blind
movement from the exercise of this kind of pseudo- intellectual,
pseudo-scientific force, backed by a good deal of very real money
with all that that implies of the ability to purchase research,
advertising, and influence, is almost too much to comprehend....

"Agency
effort to convince those with any vision at all that they are not blind and
that, consequently, they need not learn
the skills necessary to function efficiently as blind persons has
had some success. Braille, for instance, is characterized as
cumbersome and slow and is being phased out. People with any
vision must 'think' sighted and use devices to 'see' even though
the physical effort of doing so may leave no energy for
constructive activity.

"The current drive to
step up the removal of the word 'blind' from program titles and institutional
designations has
some insidious implications--intentional or not.... Will the
totally blind find it more difficult to obtain educational
opportunities and find placement in employment whether on their
own or with assistance? Are the totally blind about to be
completely buried by the 'visually handicapped,' as the blind
generally are now at the bottom of the heap of the general class
of 'physically handicapped'?..."

Mrs. tenBroek, this is what you wrote to Dr. Jernigan in the
early 1970's. Some years later in 1976, when you ceased being
associate editor of the Monitor, the Berkeley office changed, but
you did not. During that time you and Dr. Jernigan worked very
closely together. But as you left, you expressed a sentiment
which deserves our admiration. Your words are these: "We must
look to the past only for such strength as it gives to go forward
with the work we must all do." And you went on to tell us how you
felt about your work within the movement:

"It would," you said, "be
misleading to say that I won't miss the intellectual stimulation of working
with President
Jernigan, or the relationships that grew with the wonderful
people who worked on the Berkeley office staff, or the thrill of
seeing the Monitor come off the presses each month, or the groans
that accompanied the discovery of errors.... Of course I will
miss these things....

"When all that is said and done, I am retiring only as
associate editor. It is impossible for me to retire from the
Federation, for it runs deep in my blood and being. I am at your
service whenever you think I can perform some useful duty."

As I contemplate your words and remember the contributions
you have made, I know that the people of the Federation are the
substance of the organization we have. Hazel tenBroek, you have
brought caring and commitment, toil and tears, to the task of
building our movement; but you have also brought a light heart, a
vigorous hand, and abundant laughter. Results matter more to you
than the manner of doing a thing. I cannot say that the
experience recorded by the poet is one you would endorse, but I
offer it to you nonetheless. It reminds me (in a way) of certain
stories about the contributions you have made within our
movement. For we (the National Federation of the Blind) have
accomplished much. For blind people the world is no longer as it
was when we came to organize in 1940. During these forty-seven
years the National Federation of the Blind has come to be
recognized for certain characteristics. We never quit. We refuse
to permit adversity to halt our progress. We recognize the
necessity to be flexible and to bounce back. It is a long,
difficult struggle. But we do not come to the task with weariness
and a long face. Instead, we approach this business of becoming
first-class citizens with a song of joy and a light heart. You,
Mrs. tenBroek, have helped make us that way. Therefore, I offer
you these lines:

The proper way for man to pray,
Said Deacon Lemuel Keyes,
And the only proper attitude
Is down upon his knees.

No, I should say the way to pray,
Said Reverend Doctor Wise,
Is standing straight with outstretched arms
And rapt and upturned eyes.

Oh, no, no, no, said Elder Slow,
Such posture is too proud:
A man should pray with eyes fast closed
And head contritely bowed.

It seems to me his hands should be
Austerely clasped in front
With both thumbs pointing toward the ground,
Said Reverend Doctor Blunt.

Last year I fell in Hodgkin's well
Head first, said Cyrus Brown,
"With both my heels a-stickin' up,
My head a-pintin' down";

And I made a prayer right
then and there--
Best prayer I ever said.
The prayingest prayer I ever prayed,
A-standing on my head.

BLINDNESS AND THE FAMILY ANNOUNCING THE
1987 NFB SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP
FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN

by Barbara Cheadle, President
Parents of Blind Children Division
National Federation of the Blind

Mary Wurtzel, Co-Chair
Committee on Parental Concerns
National Federation of the Blind

A woman starts having labor pains two months early. The
baby is born prematurely ... and blind. The parents are
devastated. A well-meaning neighbor tells them not to worry.
The baby probably won't live long anyway and besides, she'll be
able to see in heaven.

A blind woman and her husband,
married over a year, decide it's time to start a family. She tells the good
news to a
co-worker and is greeted first with silence and then a shocked, "How are
you going to take care of a baby?"

"The Ugly Duckling" is
read by a third grade class and the teacher asks the children if they know
someone who is pre-judged
by their appearance. A boy raises his hand and says people do
that all the time to his brother. His brother is blind.

A
twelve-year-old girl comes home in tears. She had received lots of compliments
on her costume for the school play
until she told her friends that her mother had made it. Her
friends laughed and called her a liar: "Blind people can't sew!"

A teenage boy fights to keep back tears of frustration and
disappointment. He was so sure Sarah was going to ask him to the
turn-around dance. But she didn't, and now she is avoiding him.
He knows why, too. She just couldn't take the teasing she was
getting about liking that blind kid. As tears roll down his face
he wonders if there are blind people who ever date and get
married.

Child, parent, sister, or brother... it doesn't matter which
one is blind. Sooner or later every member of that family must
face the ugly truth. No matter how competent and capable a blind
child or adult is or has the potential of being, the public still
persists in believing that blindness is a pitiful tragedy, a
condition of helplessness and dependency. What's worse is that
since we are all members of that public, we are just as likely to
hold those beliefs as anyone else.

Blindness is just a characteristic like any other, no more,
no less. It is not a tragedy. It does not mean that an
individual is forever cut off from, or even restricted in, all
the normal pursuits in our society--work and career, education,
recreation, civic responsibilities, and of course family life.

However, the struggle really to believe that and to hold to
that belief in the face of age-old stereotypes, is difficult and
painful. Families can be torn apart by that struggle. They can
also emerge stronger, both as a unit and as individuals.

What
can really help is knowing people just like us who are going through, or
have gone through, what we are experiencing.
What parent of a blind child, or blind parent, or blind child, or
sighted child with a blind brother, sister, or parent has not
cried out within themselves, "Is there anybody out there like
me?"

In response to that cry, the National Federation of the
Blind Parents of Blind Children Division and the NFB Parental
Concerns Committee announce our 1987 seminar and workshop for
families impacted by blindness.

The date is Saturday,
June 27, and the place is the Civic Center across from the Hyatt Regency
in Phoenix, Arizona. The
seminar is called: "Blindness: Its Impact on Parents and
Children." In addition to this seminar there is a concurrent
workshop for school-age children (blind or sighted), grades
kindergarten through twelve, called "Is There Anybody Out There
Like Me?"

There are many more exciting, informative meetings in the
days following Saturday, June 27, because this day marks the
beginning of the week-long national convention of the National
Federation of the Blind. Those events include, among others, an
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Workshop on the evening of
Tuesday, June 30. Parents and educators of blind children will
want to plan to come for the entire week.

The workshops we have planned this year are truly special
and unique. Usually, seminars of this kind talk about the
problems of blind children, but never include the child. This
time, we are not only including the children, but the emphasis
will be on helping all family members understand and deal with
blindness--regardless of which member within the family is blind.

That means that these workshops are for parents of blind
children, blind children, blind parents, and sighted children who
have a blind parent, brother, or sister.

As we have defined the issues and drawn up the agenda, we
have become more and more excited about this concept. For
example, the adult seminar will cover critical issues and
questions that parents of blind children or blind parents
encounter almost daily. It will deal with such questions as: How
do you tell children what blindness is? How can you teach your
children positive attitudes about blindness? What do you do when
other children tease your child because he or she is blind or has
a blind parent? What do you do, for that matter, when other
adults show ignorance and insensitivity? These and many other
topics will be explored that day.

The children's workshop will run concurrently with the adult
seminar. This workshop will be for school-age children grades
kindergarten through twelve (child-care will be available for
younger children).

The workshop will be organized and led by experienced and
sensitive blind and sighted adults, many of whom are parents
and/or educators. Activities will be designed for each
age/maturity level and will emphasize positive attitudes about
blindness and skills of blindness. Children will be given the
opportunity to make friends with each other and to get to know
competent blind adults.

At the end of the day the children and the instructors will
rejoin the parents in the adult seminar, and a report of the
day's activities will be given.

Pre-registration is required for the children's workshop.
See details about this at the end of the article. Seminar
participants will also be able to attend the Parents of Blind
Children Division (POBC) annual meeting on this Saturday. The
hour-long meeting will be scheduled mid-day and will feature a
showing of a video about blind parents. We will also elect
officers, hear committee reports, and discuss other business
items.

Now, about the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) workshop.

The IEP is not on the adult seminar agenda this year for a couple
of reasons. First, we had so many other topics we could not
squeeze it in and do it justice. Second, the IEP process is
important enough, and complex enough, to be the topic of a whole
workshop in itself. So, that's what we have done.

The IEP workshop will take place on the evening of Tuesday,
June 30 (Tuesday is the day the general convention session
begins).

The IEP, for those unfamiliar with the term, is an
educational plan which the federal law requires be written to
meet the individual needs of each handicapped child receiving
special education services. The plan is drawn up by the child's
teachers and parents, must be reviewed at least once a year, and
can be revised as often as necessary.

This will be a top-notch workshop for parents and teachers
and for others (like Federationists) who advocate for blind
children.

Beyond what you can learn from these seminars and workshops
is, of course, the chance to really get to know some of the
thousands of parents out there who know just what you are going
through. Furthermore, it is an opportunity to begin to work
together to help ourselves, to help others like us, and to
educate the public so that fewer families have to suffer because
of the stigma and stereotypes of blindness.

--------------------

Pre-Registration

"Blindness: Its Impact
on Parents and Children"
and" Is There Anybody Out There Like Me?"
Seminar and Workshop
Saturday, June 27, 1987
Civic Center--Phoenix, Arizona

The Civic Center is just across the street from the Hyatt
Regency, which is the headquarters hotel for the National
Federation of the Blind Annual Convention. Registration and
check-in for the seminar and workshop will begin at 8:00 a.m. in
the Civic Center. The program for both will begin promptly at
9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m.

A room reservation form complete with details can be had by
contacting: Convention Reservations, National Federation of the
Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, (301)
659-9314. Please use the convention reservation form. You will
notice that the room rates are fantastic ($28.00 for doubles) and
that there is no extra charge for children under age 18 in the
same room with parents. Child-care will be available for
children too young to participate in the workshop. The
child-care room will be located in the Hyatt Regency. It will
open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 5.00 p.m. There is no set fee for
the service, but donations to help defray costs are expected.
Snacks will be provided, but parents must bring or purchase
lunches. A box lunch for your child in child-care can be
purchased on this pre-registration form or during registration at
the seminar. Again, since we need to know how many children to
prepare for, we must insist that children be pre- registered for
the workshop.

Registration Fees and Extra Lunches:

Fees for the workshop
and seminar include the following items:
-- Box Lunch
-- A year's subscription to Future Reflections
-- Membership in the NFB Parents of Blind Children Division (includes the
whole family: both parents and all children under age 18).

Box lunches in addition to those included with the
registration fee may be purchased at $7.00 each. Please include
the cost of any extra lunches ordered in the total amount you
enclose with this form.

A complete refund will be made if we are notified of
cancellations before June 13th. No refunds will be made after
that date.

(If you wish to register other children or adults just write
the necessary information on another sheet of paper and include
it with this form.)

Check one of the following and fill in the appropriate
amounts and final total. One adult: $10.00
Couples (husband and wife) or one parent, one child: $15.00
Families of three or more (one or two parents/guardians plus
children) $25.00

Orders for extra
lunches: (Remember, lunches are provided for each adult and child registered
for the seminars).
Total amount enclosed
Total Children attending
Total Adults attending

WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind is the oldest
and largest organization of blind people in the United States and
in Ohio; and

WHEREAS, the members of the National Federation of the Blind
have forged strong compassionate bonds of unity based on the
belief that blindness is respectable and that blind people must
speak for themselves to secure and exercise the full rights and
privileges of citizenship; and

WHEREAS, NFB's tireless advocacy in the political system and
in educating the public has resulted in the establishment of
basic subsistence for blind people who are in need, quality
rehabilitation, and job opportunities commensurate with ability
and civil rights protection; and

WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio has
traditionally held its annual convention during the month of
October; their 40th annual convention is being held from October
30 to November 2, 1986, in Cleveland, Ohio;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICHARD F. CELESTE, Governor of the State
of Ohio, do hereby proclaim the month of October, 1986, as

National Federation of the Blind
Month

throughout the State of Ohio, in recognition of the important
contributions made by the organization through its action and
philosophy.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and
caused the Great Seal of the State of Ohio to be affixed at
Columbus this 30th day of October in the Year of our Lord One
Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-Six.

Richard F. Celeste
Governor of the State of Ohio

Sherrod Brown
Secretary of State

RECIPES

(Susan Myrick is Dr. Jernigan's secretary. She works each
month helping prepare the Braille Monitor. She also finds time
to cook Maryland seafood. Here are six of Miss Myrick's favorite
Maryland seafood recipes.)

In four-quart saucepan, cook onion in margarine or butter
until tender. Blend in flour and seasonings. Add milk and
bouillon gradually and cook over medium heat, stirring
constantly, until mixture thickens enough to coat spoon. Add
crabmeat; heat, but do not boil. Garnish with parsley flakes
before serving. Makes six servings.

Note: Soup
improves upon standing as flavors get a chance to
blend, so this is a good "prepare ahead" dish. Let mixture come
to room temperature and then refrigerate until ready to use.
Reheat over very low heat, stirring often until soup is hot--but
not to the boiling point.

Remove all cartilage from crabmeat. In a bowl mix first
twelve ingredients lightly but thoroughly. Put mixture into six
individual shells or ramekins (or one-quart casserole). Sprinkle
with cracker crumbs, then dot with margarine or butter. Bake at
375 degrees for fifteen to twenty minutes or until browned on
top. Makes six servings.

Bring water to boil. Add chicken stock base and mix well.
Add all ingredients through clam juice and simmer until
vegetables are tender. Add remaining ingredients and simmer five
minutes more. Makes about four quarts.

Note: For an especially elegant version, add one dozen
shucked soft shell clams with final ingredients.

In another pan saute green onions and mushrooms in margarine
or butter until green onions are tender. Add to sauce mixture.
Gently stir lobster meat into sauce mixture.

Put into individual shells or ramekins (or greased two-quart
casserole). Sprinkle paprika over top. Bake at 450 degrees
until hot and bubbly and lightly browned on top (ten to fifteen
minutes). Makes six servings.

MONITOR MINIATURES

**Highway Vending Comes to Virginia:

In the January, 1987, newsletter of the National Federation
of the Blind of Virginia (edited by Seville Allen) the following
item appears:

The State Highway and Transportation Board voted to place
vending facilities at five Virginia highway rest areas. This
placement of vending machines along highways will be a two-year
experiment. The action adds Virginia to a growing list of states
putting the Kennelly Amendments to the Randolph-Sheppard Act into
effect.

Federationists will recall that several years ago due to our
efforts the Kennelly Amendments passed Congress, giving vendors
additional income from highway vending facilities. The
amendments left it up to each state to make use of the
opportunity to enhance vendor income. It was approximately two
years ago officials of the Virginia Department for the Visually
Handicapped (VDVH) told us that they had done all they could to
have vending machines placed at highway rest areas. There was
not one vending machine in place. Therefore, our NFBV members
went out to see that that situation was remedied. The result of
our NFBV Vendor's Association work is the five vending sites.
Federationists Joe Chandler, J.C. Coleman, Joe Chankle, and Ed
Peay worked hard to convince state officials that Virginia should
join with the other states to expand the vending program to our
state's freeway rest areas.

**Elected:

Mary Donahue
writes:

"This is just a note stating that the Austin Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Texas is alive and well. On
January 10, 1987, we held a monthly meeting. The following
officers and board members were elected: Jeff Pearcy, President;
Tommy Craig, First Vice President; Aundrea Moore, Second Vice
President; Mary Donahue, Secretary; Margaret "Cokie" Craig,
Treasurer; Zena Pearcy, Board Member Position One; and Pete
Donahue, Board Member Position Two."

**Newsletter Inaugurated:

More and more state affiliates and a number of local
chapters are regularly publishing newsletters. Recently the
National Federation of the Blind of Oregon joined the list. In
the first issue of the Oregon newsletter President David Hyde
said:

"It is always exciting when we start
a new venture. As we grow as an organization and as more and more of us take
on
greater responsibilities, it becomes apparent, as it has to many
of us, that an organization such as the Federation in Oregon must
speak with a published voice. It gives me particular pleasure,
therefore, to inaugurate this first newsletter of the NFB of
Oregon."

**Voice Dialer Telephone:

We
have been asked to carry the following announcement:

Aids Unlimited, Inc., has been appointed as an authorized
distributor for the new Model 1000 Voice Dialer Telephone. The
Voice Dialer is a significant breakthrough in telephone
communications.

Make local and long distance calls by just lifting the
receiver and speaking a name into the phone; store 100 names and
200 numbers in Voice Dialer's memory; prevent unauthorized
persons from using the phone and accessing the names and numbers
in the memory; add, erase, or change names or numbers whenever
you wish; Nicad batteries (not included) protect memory during
temporary power outage; touch one button for emergency police or
doctor calls; access computer services, stock quotation services,
and home banking services by voice; time your calls while you are
talking; adjust ring volume from off to loud; Voice Dialer can
also be used as a conventional phone--even when power is out; no
vision required to set or operate any function; suitable for
rotary or pulse tone; built-in capacity for future accessories;
FCC approved--two-year warranty; cassette and print instructions
included.

Voice Dialer is perfect for the person who makes frequent
calls to a lot of different numbers. It is also perfect for the
person who needs to save time--no need to look up numbers; no
need to dial. Names and numbers in memory can be verified with
the touch of a button.

"The Ruth Berry Versaw Library for the Blind is a free loan
Christian library consisting of Sunday church sermons, radio
sermons, and a variety of Bible studies and series. Tape or ink
print catalogs are available upon request to Ruth Versaw, 11104
North Brauer, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73114."

**Wins Vendor Appeal:

The
following item appears in the January, 1987, newsletter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Virginia:

NFBV Helps Vendor Win Social Security Appeal:

Did you know that Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) is intended, by its regulation, to replace earned income?
IF the folks at the Social Security Administration understood
this, as well as Federationists, many more persons would be
qualified for and receive SSDI.

In 1984 a Virginia vendor applied for SSDI, and his
application was denied. The Federation was asked to help him
with his appeal. Larry Povinelli, a student studying law at
George Mason University and active Federationist, represented the
vendor for his appeal hearing. The case was ultimately won on
the principle that expenses needed to produce earned income are
deducted, whether that deduction be by the vendor or the host
facility. The vendor's earned (take home) income was deemed to
be at a level which made him eligible to receive SSDI. Just one
more reason, in a growing list of reasons, why we have a National
Federation of the Blind and our Virginia affiliate.

**Blind Employee of Year:

On November 5, 1986, Theresa Jeraldi-- a Federationist from
Massachusetts--was named Massachusetts Blind Employee of the
Year. Theresa is the fourth person and the first woman to win
this award, which is cosponsored annually by the Carroll Center
for the Blind and the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind.
She works in Boston for the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S.
Department of Education. After eight years of service, she is
now an intake investigator at the journeyman level.

Theresa has been a member of the National Federation of the
Blind for seven years and is currently Vice President of the
Cambridge Chapter. At the award ceremony held at the Bank of
Boston she said that she was inspired by role models whom she had
met in the National Federation of the Blind.

**Oral Insulin Pill Possible:

A
recent news article carried widely on the services said:

Researchers say they have developed a method that someday
may allow diabetics to take insulin orally instead of through
injections, a goal that has eluded scientists for decades. The
technique, which involves sealing insulin-containing capsules in
plastic film to protect them from the digestive system, could
eliminate the daily needle pricks a minority of diabetics must
endure, the researchers say. Scientists at Bowling Green State
University and the Medical College of Ohio say the approach also
might be useful in treating cancer and other diseases of the
colon, the destination of the capsuled medicines.

**Elected:

David Walker
writes:

"On January 3, 1987, the National Federation of the Blind of
Jefferson City, Missouri, elected the following officers and
board members: President, Betty Walker; Vice President, Rita
Lynch; Secretary, Dave Walker; Treasurer, Alvin Toebben; and
Board Members George Bushman, Brian Wekamp, and Lavern Toebben."

**New Chapter:

The National Federation of the Blind of Virginia recently
announced the formation of the Seven Hills Chapter in Lynchburg.
Bill Walker is the President. Contragulations to the new
chapter.

**DX Audio Service:

We
have been asked to carry the following announcement:

The DX Audio Service is a monthly recorded periodical
featuring news about medium wave radio worldwide. It includes
interviews with radio personalities from around the world, as
well as news for the serious radio enthusiast. DX Audio News is
a project of the National Radio Club, Inc. Subscriptions are $25
per year or $12 per year if the tapes are returned. For more
information, or to subscribe, contact National Radio Club, Inc.,
Post Office Box 24, Cambridge, Wisconsin 53523.

**Dirty Books:

Ruth Goodwin is a Federationist from Missouri who has
attended the last fifteen NFB conventions. In a recent letter
she says:

"I have enjoyed the last two Monitors very much. I do have
one request and that is for a brief article regarding talking
books. When we receive our machines, explicit instructions are
given for the care of the machine and also the use of the records
and cassettes--that is, the records should be kept in sequence
with the Braille side on top. Within the last few years I have
received records in deplorable condition. Not only are they
dirty and sticky, but sometimes it is necessary to go through the
entire contents to get the records in proper order. It is my
understanding that our regional library often has trouble with
bad cassettes (some of which I have received) because borrowers
have not indicated that something was wrong with one or more of
the cassettes when returning them. I believe you could write a
miniature for the Monitor which might help."

**Seventeen Announces:

The January, 1987, issue of Seventeen magazine carries an
article entitled "30 Super Scholarships: A Guide to Capitalizing
on College Aid." The National Federation of the Blind scholarship
program is listed. No other organization in the field of
blindness is mentioned.

**Theater Guild:

The November, 1986, newsletter of the National Federation of
the Blind of Illinois reports:

"Jacksonville
Theater Guild Elects New President: The Jacksonville Theater Guild held its
annual dinner meeting
September 30, 1986. The Theater Guild board of directors elected
Cathy Randall President for the upcoming 1986-87 season."

**Appointed:

Joe Urbanek of South Carolina, who is providing the Francis
Urbanek Memorial Scholarship in memory of his deceased brother,
was appointed by the National Library Service for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped in October of 1986 to serve on the Ad Hoc
Audio Equipment Advisory Committee.

**Life After Blindness:

Recently
Tom Stevens wrote to President Maurer:

"On November 15, 1986, the Columbia, Missouri, Chapter of
the National Federation of the Blind completed its eleventh
seminar in the past thirty months. The seminar addressed the
subject: 'Is There Life After Blindness?' Obviously, we
objectively concluded that there is. To insure that the content
of that seminar did not fade away in the air, we videotaped it
and have prepared a videotape, which is in the latter stages of
production. We hope to have it available in the very near future
for others to use."

**Arbitration Panel

In a letter to the federal Rehabilitation Services
Administration dated December 3, 1986, Philip Peterson (Director
of the Michigan Commission for the Blind) said:

"In
response to Rehabilitation Services Commissioner Justin W. Dart, Jr.'s letter
of November 14, 1986, authorizing the
convening of an arbitration panel to hear and render a decision
on the issues raised in the complaint re: Michigan Commission for
the Blind vs. U.S. Department of Defense, Case No. R-S/87-2 and
in compliance with Section 6 of the Interim Arbitration
Procedures, we are designating Mr. James Gashel as the panel
member to represent the Michigan Commission for the Blind.

"Mr.
Gashel has fourteen years of experience in Randolph-Sheppard matters. He
worked with the federal government
in writing the rules and regulations which pertain to the 1974
Act amendments. He has provided expert testimony for
Randolph-Sheppard Act matters before congressional oversight
committee hearings and, most importantly, has professionally
represented blind individuals on three national arbitration
panels. Additionally, Mr. Gashel has presented testimony before
ten other panels and provided expert testimony on Randolph-
Sheppard matters at national and state level hearings."

**Audible Traffic Signals Again:

Under date of December 23, 1986, Charles E. Young
(Administrator of the Oregon Commission for the Blind) wrote to
Dean Franklin, who is the District Traffic Engineer for the City
of Portland, as follows:

"The Oregon Commission
for the Blind has learned that the city of Portland has installed audible
traffic signals in two
locations and that a third location is under consideration at the
request of Volunteer Braille Services. While this accommodation
may appear to meet the needs of blind and visually impaired
individuals, there is a real concern about their effectiveness
and safety among some members of the blind community. As a
result of this concern, our board of Commissioners has directed
me to request that you set a moratorium on all future
installations until the Commission and members of the community
have had a chance to discusss the benefits of audible traffic
signals for blind persons.

"This issue was
brought up for discussion at a December 10 meeting of this agency's board
of Commissioners.

"The concerns that were
stated at this December 10 meeting
include:

"1. Volunteer Braille Services may
have recommended
installation of an audible traffic signal without seeking
appropriate input from consumer groups of the blind. The
Commission is particularly concerned about this because we
subgrant money to Volunteer Braille Services, and one condition
of this grant is that blind individuals be involved in
decision-making.

"2. There is a concern that
audible traffic signals may create safety hazards worse than those they are
supposed to
alleviate. Possible hazards include: (1) the sound of the signal
may block out the sound of traffic approaching, which may be
dangerous if this traffic runs counter to the signal; and (2) a
person using the signals may become dependent on them and
therefore less capable of crossing an intersection on their own
when necessary.

"3. There is a concern that
such devices may further the negative image that blind persons need costly
modifications of
their environment to be able to participate in our society.

"For
all of these reasons, we ask that you allow time for community input before
installing the signal near Volunteer
Braille Services or at any other location."

**Michigan School for the Blind:

The following item appears in the December, 1986, Michigan
Focus, the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Michigan:

Michigan began providing education for the blind in 1859 in
Flint at the Michigan Asylum for Educating the Deaf and Dumb and
the Blind. In 1879 the legislature established the Michigan
School for the Blind, and in 1880 the school was moved to its
present site in Lansing, the former home of the Michigan Female
College and the Institute for Oddfellows. The School for the
Blind opened on September 29, 1880, with thirty-five students and
twenty-four staff members. In June, 1881, five students made up
the school's first graduating class. In 1887 the school enrolled
its first deaf-blind student. In the late fifties the school
experienced its largest enrollment with 300 children, K - 12.
Initially, instruction was by lecture/demonstration but in
1884-85 the Braille system was introduced.

**Civil Disobedience:

Recently someone wrote to President Maurer saying that
Sharon Gold had engaged in civil disobedience when she refused to
move from the exit row seat on the airplane last summer.
President Maurer replied:

"What is civil disobedience?
Henry David Thoreau wrote extensively about it. However, as I understand
the term, I am
not sure that it fits Sharon Gold's case. For civil disobedience
to occur, there must be a law which is violated. I don't believe
Sharon Gold violated any. Civil disobedience may mean that there
is a law with which an individual disagrees so violently that the
individual cannot obey it in good conscience. The individual who
violates this law must accept the consequences of the violation.
To endure a period of time in jail or to be required to pay a
fine may be preferable to obedience to an unjust law. I am not
sure that civil disobedience occurred with Sharon Gold. Perhaps
what she did is something else."

**Dies:

Eileen O'Brien, who was one of our most able and dedicated
members, died January 28, 1987, because of complications of
diabetes. When Eileen became blind, she was an English teacher
in the Chicago public schools. She continued her teaching until
kidney failure forced her to leave the classroom. Although this
meant a shift of direction, it did not mean any lessening of her
spirit of determination and service to others. Eileen became
active in the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois. She
was one of the originators of the Diabetic Support Network within
the NFB. When the Network evolved into the Diabetic Division,
Eileen was chosen to be its First Vice President. She was
determined to see that blind diabetics received the help and
information they needed to make decisions about dealing with
diabetes. Her optimistic attitude led her to the NFB. The rich
gift of her spirit has strengthened all of us and has helped
bring Federationism to many. She was much loved and will be
greatly missed.

**New Slogan and Logo Wanted:

Karen Mayry, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of South Dakota, writes:

"The South Dakota
Penitentiary Braille Unit needs help in selecting a new slogan and logo.
Currently they are using the
following: 'Confined Leading the Blind.' This slogan is
accompanied by a picture of an open eye behind bars. Leaders of
the blind are other blind individuals. Thus, the slogan is
inappropriate. With many people still looking at blindness as
synonomous with imprisonment, a new logo ought to be created as
well. The men are most congenial to receiving other suggestions.

However, they wish to retain the words 'confined' and 'blind' in
the slogan. They have offered to hold a contest to obtain
suggested slogans and logos more acceptable to the blind. You
can help by sending your entry to: Braille Unit, South Dakota
Penitentiary, Attention: Dan McQuillen, 1600 North Drive, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota 57101. The prize is either one dozen
custom-made assorted greeting cards or a tour of the South Dakota
Penitentiary, including the Braille Unit and a meal well worth
it. The guys are enthusiastic and dedicated. Let us help them
out as they help blind persons with their transcription of
textbooks and restaurant menus."